of  /T\etl70<dism 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 

i 

j 

i 

1                                             Division  ~S>^,^^SS 

i 

j                                             Section  X 

j  Shelf  Number  

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/makingofmethodisOOtige 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 

(i) 


DR.  TIGERT'S  WORKS. 


A  Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Wlethodisnn.  8vo, 
Hi  pages.  S1.50. 

"The  work  will  bear  the  same  relation  to  Methodism  that  the  great  work  of  lloilge 
bears  to  tlie  I'resbyteriuii  CharcU."— Bishop  Hurst.  "A classic  in  Methoilist  literature, 
not  to  say  ecclesiastical  literature. "—iJ/s/iop  Hendrix. 

Hand-book  of  Logic:  AConciseBoayof  Logical  Doctrine,  Including  Modern  Ad- 
ditions; with  Xumcrous  Practical  Exercises.   I'imo.  320  pages.  $1.  Seventh  edition. 

"  It  is  l  omiirelicnsivc;  written  witli  a  great  deal  of  ability  and  precision.  It  may  be 
characlcii/.eil  ;\s  ■malhim  in  parvo.'' — Dr.II.M.  Harmayi,  Dickinson  College.  "You 
have  certainly  iirddiiccil  an  excellent  wovk— one  of  the  best  in  our  language— the  influence 
of  wliicli  will  frreally  em-nuraj^e  the  study  of  the  science  in  our  colleges.  I  believe  and 
hope  that  it  will  conic  into  extensive  use." — Prof.  Noah  K.  Davis,  University  of  Virginia. 

Systematic  Theology:  A  Complete  Body  of  Wesleyan  Arminian  Divinity,  Con- 
sisting of  Lectures  on  the  Twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion,  by  the  late  Rev.  Thomaa 
O.  Summers,  D.D.,  LL.D.  The  Whole  Arranged  and  Revised,  with  Introduction,  Co- 
pious Notes,  Explanatory  and  Sujipleniental,  and  a  Theological  Glossary.  By  Rev. 
J  no.  J.  Tigert,  M.A.,  S.T.B.,  Professor  in  Vanderbilt  University.  In  two  volumes. 
Royal  Svo.    5.52,  572  pages.    Each  .f2.    (Over  two  thousand  sets  have  been  sold.) 

"  I  regard  it  as  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  our  Methodist  and  general  theological 
literature.  It  oimiit  to  occupy  a  prominent  place,  because  of  its  broad  scope  and  oi  the 
rich  material  which  abounds  throughout  the  work." — Bishop  John  F.  Hurst. 

The  Preacher  Himself:  Homely  Hints  on  Ministerial  Manners  and  Methods. 
12mo.   200  pages.   80  cents.    (Second  edition.) 

"The  character,  duties,  and  relations  of  the  ministry,  with  sjiecial  reference  to  the  re- 
quirements of  Methodism,  are  here  sUetclied  in  grapliic  outlines,  every  chapter  bristling 
witli  suggestions  of  ijractica!  value." — L. 

Passing  Through  the  Gates,  and  Otlicr  Sermons.  By  tlie  late  Rev.  Holland 
Nimmons  McTycire,  D.D.,  Senior  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 
Edited,  with  an  Introduction,  by  Rev.  Juo.  J.  Tigert,  D.D.    12mo.   319  pages.  $1. 

"Dr.  Tigert  has  given  the  Church  evidence  of  superior  slcill,  both  as  an  author  and 
editor.  ISisho])  ?,IcTj  eire  u  as  Unnwn  bolli  as  preacher  and  writer  throughout  the  coun- 
try; SI)  when  we  saw  the  1  k  our  expectations  were  high.    An  eager  iieru^al  ha>  iint 

disappointed  us.  Dr.  Tigert.  in  his  1  ntrocliicl ion,  has  given  lis  an  instructive,  liiscriiiii- 
naling,  ami  faitliful  eslimale  of  liisliop  McTyeiie  as  a  preacher.  No  juster  eslimale  of 
the  bishop  in  this  line  have  we  seen."— Puller. 

A  Manual  of  Christian  Doctrine.  By  the  Rev.  .lolin  S.  Banks,  Theological  Tu- 
tor, lleadingley  College,  Leeds.  First  American  from  the  Fourth  English  Edition. 
Edited,  with  an  Introiiuction  and  Additions,  by  Jno.  J.  Tigert,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Book  Ed- 
itor, Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.    12mo.   3ni  pages.    Price,  .$1.50. 

"  Here  is  a  great  book.  We  have  read  it  through,  and  jiortionsof  it  twice.  It  combines 
depth  ami  brilliancy."— A'.  N.  Price.  D.D.  "  It  is  not  suri)assed  by  any  book  of  which 
we  have  knowledge."— CcwirnJ  Methodist.  "  Dr.  Tigert's  notes  are  pertinent  and  lumi- 
nous, and  enhance  the  value  of  a  work  which  was  already  almost  invaluable  to  the  stu- 
dent of  theology." — North  Carolina  Christian  Advocate. 

The  Journal  of  Thomas  Coke,  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  from 
September  18,  1784,  to  June  3,  1785.  Reprinted  from  the  Arminian  Magazine,  Phila- 
delphia, for  May,  June,  July,  and  August,  1789.  Carefully  conformed  to  the  Original. 
Svo.   32  pages.    Papei',  50  cents. 

A  Voice  From  the  South  :  The  Fraternal  Address,  Delivered  Before  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Cliurcli,  May,  1S92.    12mo.   64  pp.    10  cents. 
"  Dr.  Tigert  has  performed  a  real  service." — J.  M.  Buckley. 

Theology  and  Philosophy,  A  Select  Glossary  of ;  Including  Brief  Biographical 
Notices  of  Eminent  Theologians  and  Pliilosophers.   Svo.  52pages.   Paper, 25  cents. 

"There  is  more  matter  in  tlie  fifty-two  closely  printed  iiages  than  is  usually  found  in 
one  huiidreil,  and  the  work  is  distinguished' thronirhout  bv  fullness  of  information, 
clearness  of  statement,  and  conciseness  of  expression."— i)r.  C.  F.  Smith. 

Original  Status  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 

8vo.  21  pages.   Paper,  10  cents. 
Wandering  Stars;   or.  Rationalism  the  Root  of  Sin.  Svo.   16  pages.   10 cents. 


BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents,  NASHVILLE,  Tenn. 

(ii) 


THE 


MAKING  OF  METHODISM: 


STUDIES  I.N  THE 


GENESIS  OF  INSTITUTIONS. 


JNO.  J.  TIGEKT,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

EDITOK  OF  THE  METHODIST  REVIEW. 


*'First  the  blade,  ihen  the  ear,  then  the  full  corn  in  the 
ear." — Mark  iv.  28. 


Nashville,  Texn.: 

pTTBLISHrNG  HOCSE  OF  THE  MetHODIST  EPISCOPAL  ChUKCH,  SoUTH. 

Barbee  &  8^rITH,  Agents. 
1898. 


Copykight: 
Barbee  and  Smith,  Agents. 
1898. 


3obn  3nmc5  ^igert,  Sr., 

Who,  for  Half  a  Century,  has  Wisely  and  Tenderly  Discharged 
THE  Duties  of  Class  Leader  and  Steward; 
Who,  for  a  Score  of  Years,  has  been  the  ConsideiliVte  and 
Affectionate  Parent  of  JIy  Household  ;  and 
Who,  in  Age  and  Feebleness  Extreme,  Abides 
with  Us  at  Fourscore  Years; 

THIS  VOLUME  IS 

GRATEFULLY  AND  LOVIXGLY  DEDICATED. 

(V) 


PREFACE. 

The  last  quarter  of  the  seventeenth,  and  the  first  decade  of 
the  eighteenth,  century  were  needed  for  building  the  cathedral 
church  of  the  metropolis  of  the  world.  Though  thus  a  church 
of  two  centuries,  it  is  a  building  of  but  one  generation;  for 
throughout  the  period  of  its  erection  there  were  but  one  mas- 
ter-builder, one  architect,  and  one  bishop  of  the  diocese.  While 
St.  Paul's  was  in  building  there  was  born  in  England  the  ar- 
chitect, master-builder,  and  bishop  of  another  London  ecclesi- 
astical edifice — a  building  of  God,  a  spiritual  house  not  made 
with  hands,  whose  materials  were  living  stones — who,  though 
he  lived  nearly  across  the  eighteenth  century,  did  not  live  long 
enough  to  finish  the  work  he  began.  The  Making  of  Metho- 
dism is  a  work  of  the  generations  for  the  generations;  and, 
since  to-day  it  probably  occupies  the  position  of  the  first  Prot- 
estantism of  the  world,  it  is  beginning  to  look  as  if  it  might 
prove  the  Church  of  the  Centuries. 

To  students  it  is  becoming  increasingly  evident  that  the 
history  of  Methodism  in  America,  especially  in  its  beginnings, 
must  sooner  or  later  be  critically  reconstructed  and  rewritten. 
It  is  not  that  Abel  Stevens  does  not  richly  deserve  recognition 
as  the  Macaulay  of  Methodism,  or  Bishop  McTyeire  as  its 
Tacitus.  It  is  not  that  writers  earlier  than  Stevens — I  refer 
particularly  to  Jesse  Lee — did  not  collect  and  preserve  inval- 
uable materials  and  render  other  useful  service.  It  is  not  that 
some  later  writers  have  not  made  careful  studies  and  embodied 
them  in  more  or  less  trustworthy  monographs  and  general 
works.  But  it  is  that  there  have  been  slowly  collecting  the 
materials  for  a  more  comprehensive  and  exhaustive  presenta- 
tion of  the  history  according  to  the  philosophical  and  causal 
principles  of  its  development;  for  the  correction  of  errors  and 

(vii) 


viii 


PREFACE. 


misconceptions,  some  of  them  growu  hoary  and  stubborn  by 
long  unchallenged  acceptance;  for  freeing  the  narrative  from 
one-sided  controversial  elements;  for  more  accurately  and  mi- 
nutely tracing  the  genesis  of  the  government  of  the  Church, 
and  the  unfolding  of  the  organic  principles  of  fundamental 
law,  purely  in  the  light  of  the  abundant  contemporary  sources; 
for  filling  in  details  in  the  biographies  of  the  itinerant  heroes 
who  planted  Methodism  in  the  wilderness  and  made  it  bloom 
as  the  garden  of  the  Lord;  and,  in  fine,  for  occupying  a  new 
and  higher  historical  standpoint  from  which  a  better  outlook 
over  the  whole  field  can  be  secured,  putting  all  the  objects  of 
the  vast  panorama  in  something  like  their  true  proportion  and 
perspective. 

As  a  contribution  to  the  correct  construction  of  our  govern- 
mental history  this  volume  is  intended.  The  chapters  which 
follow  have  occupied  me  at  intervals  through  a  period  of  three 
years,  receiving  from  time  to  time  the  best  attention  I  could 
give  them.  Though  some  of  them  were  written  under  the 
pressure  of  various  and  somewhat  exacting  editorial  duties, 
there  has  been  in  every  case  opportunity  for  review  of  the  po- 
sitions taken  and  of  the  foundations  upon  which  they  rest.  I 
have  endeavored  to  imitate  the  example  of  the  workman  who, 
in  the  pause  at  the  railway  station,  taps  the  car-wheel  with  his 
hammer.  While  my  readers  may  discern  abundant  traces  of 
infirmity  and  fallibility  in  these  pages,  I  cannot  tax  myself 
with  haste  or  carelessness  in  their  composition  and  publica- 
tion. I  prefer,  nevertheless,  to  have  these  papers  looked  upon 
as  historical  studies;  though  the  conclusions  reached  are  de- 
liberate and,  I  think,  not  unworthy  of  attention. 

Some  new  ground  has  been  broken.  Some  features  in  the 
development  of  the  presiding  eldership  have  perhaps  been 
more  distinctly  traced,  if  not  placed  in  a  new  light:  taken  in 
connection  with  what  I  have  tried  to  present  elsewhere,  the 
materials  now  exist  for  an  orderly  and  complete  history  of  thi& 


PBEFACE. 


important  arm  of  our  service.  No  former  attempt  has  been 
made  at  a  critical  catalogue  of  the  sources  of  the  history  of  the 
Christmas  Conference — the  forerunner  of  a  similar  catalogue 
of  all  the  editions  of  the  Methodist  Discipline,  in  both  Epis- 
copal Method  isms,  for  which  I  have  nearly  completed  the  ma- 
terials. Some  aspects,  at  least,  of  the  history  of  the  Christmas 
Conference,  e.  g.,  the  exact  occasion  and  circumstances  that  gave 
birth  to  the  body  in  the  call  of  the  preachers  at  Barratt's,  are 
here  more  exhaustively  treated,  with  a  more  careful  basing  of 
the  narrative  exclusively  on  the  sources,  than  by  any  histori- 
an with  whose  work  I  am  acqxiaiuted.  I  think  that  most  crit- 
ical students  will  probably  agree  that  the  question  or  the 
"lost  minutes"  of  the  Christmas  Conference  is  about  laid:  at 
least  the  investigation  here  made  approximately  exhausts  the 
state  of  the  evidence,  and  cancels  this  hypothetical  factor  in 
the  present  reconstruction  of  the  history.  In  the  earlier  chap- 
ters, covering  more  familiar  ground,  citations  of  the  evidence 
are  not  so  uniformly  giA-en;  but  in  these  cases,  also,  readers 
who  care  to  investigate  will  generally  find  that  the  paragraphs, 
and  often  the  very  sentences  and  phrasing,  rest  immediately 
on  unimpeachable  sources.  My  constant  aim  has  been  to  make 
the  discussions  intelligible,  constructive,  and  conclusive,  and  of 
equal  interest  to  special  students  and  general  readers;  in  short, 
to  all  who  have  an  interest  in  tracing  the  growth  of  Methodism. 

During  the  writing  of  this  book,  oflficial  duty,  as  well  as  in- 
clination, has  led  me  to  wide  reading  in  general  history:  I 
have  been  more  than  ever  impressed  with  the  study  of  history 
— the  investigation  of  historical  problems,  and  the  weighing  of 
historical  evidence  —  as  perhaps  the  most  valuable  of  mental 
disciplines.  It  is  at  the  opposite  pole  from  the  reasonings  of 
mathematics  and  pure  logic,  within  whose  demonstrative  pale 
BO  little  of  practical  human  interest  can  be  brought.  Bishop 
Butler  was  among  the  first,  not  only  to  gauge  the  value  of 


X 


PREFACE. 


probable  reasouiug  for  the  evidences  of  religion,  but  also  to 
seize  upon  its  unique  worth  as  an  element  of  mental  discipline 
^nay,  as  a  characteristic  and  distinguishing  feature  of  moral 
probation  itself.  Similarly,  the  successful  study  of  history  re- 
quires or  produces  an  elevated  position,  a  broad  horizon,  a  del- 
icate and  seusitive  poise  of  the  faculties,  which  must  be  shel- 
tered from  controversial  gusts,  a  serious  and  impartial  judg- 
ment, an  intellectually  sympathetic  and  hospitable  nature,  a 
clear  rational  collocation  of  conditions,  and  a  firm  passage  from 
causes  to  effects.  Of  the  greatness  of  my  deficiencies  in  all 
these  respects,  no  one  can  be  more  painfully  aware  than  myself, 
especially  as  from  my  youth  my  natural  bent  has  been  toward 
purely  philosophical  studies.  But  I  must  be  permitted  to  say 
that,  in  reading  such  books,  for  example,  as  Harnack's  History 
of  Dogma — involved  and  perplexing  as  the  style  often  is — my 
spirit  has  at  times  been  raised  to  a  pitch  of  admiration  and  en- 
thusiasm that  was  little  short  of  transporting.  To  watch  the 
accurate,  complete,  and  beautiful  manner  with  which  pertinent 
scraps  of  evidence  are  brought  together  from  the  four  quarters 
of  the  earth,  until  there  is  a  reconstruction  before  one's  very 
eyes  of  the  opinions  and  influence  of  sometimes  obscure  men, 
sects,  and  parties,  of  whom  the  literary  monuments  are  few  and 
scant,  affords  a  sublimer  exhibition  of  human  skill  than  is  in- 
volved in  the  most  delicate  or  the  most  ponderous  mechanical 
creations,  or  even  in  the  putting  together  of  fins  and  wings  and 
bones  until  the  extinct  fishes,  birds,  and  beasts  of  long  past 
geological  ages  are  made  to  take  their  places  in  our  scientific 
catalogues.  I  shall  not  be  misunderstood,  therefore,  I  trust,  if 
I  venture  to  acknowledge  that  some  high  ideals  have  dimly  and 
distantly  floated  before  my  mind  while  writing  these  pages,  and 
that  with  an  increasing  sense  of  responsibility  I  have  put  pen 
to  paper.  In  particular,  it  is  with  no  disrespect  for  the  later 
historians  that  I  have  very  generally  neglected  their  labors, 
and  sought  to  draw  the  history  directly,  purely,  and  objectively 


PREFACE. 


xi 


from  the  sources.  If  I  have  missed  the  way,  I  have  no  one  but 
myself  to  blame,  as  I  have  chosen  to  plunge  into  the  forest 
with  little  help  from  guides  or  guideposts. 

These  sources,  with  two  or  three  exceptions,  it  is  unnecessary 
to  enumerate  here,  as  they  are  sufficiently  indicated  in  the  volume. 
I  wish,  however,  to  express  my  personal  obligations  to  the  Eev. 
David  J.  Waller,  D.D.,  for  the  courtesy  and  generosity  with  wliich 
he  delivered  into  my  official  custody  a  complete  set  of  the  "  Min- 
utes of  the  Methodist  Conferences"  (British)  from  1744  to  1896 — 
thirty-nine  stoutly-bound  volumes  in  all.  These  books  have  been 
of  no  slight  service  to  me,  and  pass  into  the  editorial  libi-ary  of 
the  Publishing  House  as  a  fertile  deposit  for  the  years  to  come. 
I  have  also  made  use  of  a  collection  of  Methodist  Disciplines 
which,  with  the  help  of  my  friend,  Mr.  K  T.  Miller,  of  Coving- 
ton, Ky.,  may  fairly  be  described  as  complete.  I  am  particu- 
larly indebted  to  Brother  Miller,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Fed- 
eration Commission  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  the 
use  of  the  original  Disciplines  of  1784  (the  first)  and  of  1787 — of 
which  he  owns  one  of  the  only  two  copies  known  to  be  in  existieuce. 
All  the  passages  in  this  volume  which  were  first  taken  from  re- 
prints, have  been  carefully  collated  with  the  originals  of  1784 
and  1787,  "that,"  as  Brother  Miller  says  in  a  private  letter, 
"you  may  be  able  to  state  that  you  have  seen  and  compared 
what  you  have  reproduced  with  the  originals,  and  that,  of  your 
own  knowledge,  your  reproduction  is  correct."  For  this  kind- 
ness I  here  express  my  grateful  thanks  to  Brother  Miller.  I 
am  safe  in  saying  that  no  previous  writer  on  Methodist  history 
has  had  at  his  command  a  collection  of  Disciplines  comparable 
with  my  own  thus  supplemented:  of  them  I  have  endeavored  to 
make  constant  and  judicious  use.  I  have  also  used  a  collection 
of  Sunday  Services  completed,  with  the  help  of  Mr.  Miller,  to  a 
point  where  they  cease  to  be  of  importance  for  my  present  pur- 
poses: the  first  edition,  1784;  the  second  edition,  1786  (both 
American);  the  third  edition,  1788  (British);  the  fourth  edi- 


xii 


PREFACE. 


tion,  1792  (both  the  American  and  the  British  editions);^  and 
the  fifth  edition,  1816  (British). 

Though  this  preface  is  already  too  long — embracing  matter 
wliich  perhaps  might  better  have  gone  into  the  volume,  but  for 
which  I  did  not  find  a  place — I  desire  to  acknowledge  the  efii- 
cient  and  constant  aid  unstintedly  given  me  by  my  assistant, 
Mr.  John  L.  Kirby,  whose  journalistic  and  typographical  expe- 
rience, reaching  back  more  than  thirty  years  to  his  association 
with  Mr.  Geo.  D.  Prentice  on  the  staff  of  the  Louisville  Jour- 
nal, has  contributed  to  the  accuracy  and  dispatch  of  all  my 
literary  work  for  three  years  past. 

JnO.  J.  TiGERT. 

Nashville,  2  February,  1898. 

'In  explanation  of  this  distinction  I  ouglit  to  add  that  in  1788  and  1792, 
and  almost  certainly  in  1786  also,  both  American  and  English  editions  of  the 
Sunday  Servi(!e  or  Prayer-book  were  published.  In  the  English  editions 
the  XXIIId  Article  of  Religion  differs  wholly  from  the  American  Article, 
reading  as  follows : 

XXIII.  Op  the  Rulers  op  the  British  Dominions. 
The  King's  Majesty,  with  his  Parliament,  hatli  tlie  chief  ijowei-  in  all  the  British  Do- 
minions; unto  wlioni  the  chief  government  of  all  estates  in  all  causes  doth  appertain, 
and  is  not,  nor  ought  to  be,  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction. 

So  the  Article  reads  in  the  British  editions  of  1788  and  1792— p.  320  in 
both — which  lie  before  me.  It  might  be  added  that  both  of  these  British 
books  contain  the  forms  of  ordination  for  Deacons,  Elders,  and  Superintend- 
ents. Tliey  are  of  first-rate  importance  in  determining  the  intentions  of 
Mr.  Wesley  with  regard  to  the  relations  of  British  and  American  Methodism. 
These  distinguishing  features  of  the  British  editions  disappear  after  1792.  I 
think  I  may  safely  say  that  I  am  the  first  writer— at  least  on  this  side  the 
Atlantic— to  discover  these  books,  and  to  appreciate  their  importance  and 
use  them. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

Page 


The  Episcopacy   3 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Episcopacy  (Continued)   i3 

CHAPTEE  III. 

The  Presiding  Eldership   27 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Presiding  Eldership  (Continued)   38 

CHAPTEE  V. 

The  Itinerancy  47 

CHAPTEE  VI. 

The  Itinerancy  (Continued)   57 

CHAPTEE  VII. 
TflE  Itinerancy  (Concluded)   66 

CHAPTEE  Vlll. 

The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences   75 

I.  The  Origin  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  Genesis  op  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences   86 


II.  Organization,  Membership,  and  Minutes  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference. 

(xiii) 


xiv 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  X. 

PAfiE 

The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences.  ...  98 
III.  Sources  of  the  Ilistoiy  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences.,..  113 

III.  Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
(Continued). 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences....  120 

IV.  The  Historical  Development. 

CHAPTEE  XIII. 

The  Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government  in  Amer- 
ican Methodism   147 

APPENDIX. 

Orders:  Eoman  and  Anglican  ,   161 

Index   171 

LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Francis  Asburt's  Episcopal  Ordination  Frontispiece 

EiCHARD  Whatcoat,  THE  FiR.ST  Methodist  Elder  ..  Facing  p.  30 
Francis  Asbury,  Apostle  op  American  Methodism  .  Facing  p.  57 

Barratt's  Chapel,  Kent  County,  Delaware  Facing  p.  76 

Thomas  Coke,  Foreign  Minister  of  Methodism,  . .  .Facing  p.  113 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 

(1) 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


CHAPTEE  I. 

The  Episcopacy. 

All  the  powers,  and  more,  ever  exercised  by  a  Methodist 
bishop  were  exercised  by  John  Wesley.  He  admitted  to  and 
excluded  from  his  societies;  he  chose  and  removed  stewards; 
he  invited  his  helpers  to  meet  him  in  consultation;  he  presided 
in  the  Conferences  and  fixed  the  appointments  of  the  preachers; 
he  received,  changed,  and  suspended  preachers  according  to  his 
judgment;  he  traveled  throughout  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
superintending  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  Con- 
nection; and  he  ordained  deacons,  presbyters,  and  bishops. 
Nothing  has  been  introduced  into  Episcopal  Methodism  in 
America  that  did  not  exist  in  primitive  Methodism  in  England 
under  the  government  of  its  founder.  All  these  things  he  did 
without  the  mandatory,  and  even  without  the  concurrent,  action 
of  the  Conference,  except  as  he  chose  to  consult  its  sentiments, 
and  to  follow  its  advice.  Advance  in  America  has  been  by 
r-;version  to  the  primitive  type;  in  England  there  has  been 
degeneration  from  the  type. 

Modern  American  Methodists  have  commonly  supposed  that 
only  in  a  figure  was  Mr.  Wesley  a  bishop;  but,  in  view  of  the 
facts  stated  above,  as  well  as  some  things  which  Mr.  Wesley 
said  of  himself  about  a  clear  divine  call  and  providential  desig- 
nation to  the  ofiice  and  work  of  a  scriptural  bishop,  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  American  minutes  of  1789  and  1790  number 
John  Wesley  among  the  persons  that  exercised  the  episcopal 
office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America. 

In  America  the  earliest  adumbration  of  the  general  super- 
intendency  was  in  the  person  and  duties  of  Thomas  Kankin, 
the  first  general  assistant  for  America.  Erom  1773  to  1777  he 
exercised  in  America  the  same  powers  that  Mr.  Wesley  did 
in  England,  except  that  he  was  under  the  direction  of  Mr 

(3) 


4 


THE  MAKING  OF  MFTUODTFIM. 


Wesley;  that  he  did  not  administer  sacraments  or  ordain, 
though  the  question  was  mooted  whether  he  ought  not  to  bap- 
tize; and  that  the  Conference  decided  by  vote  many  measures 
that  were  submitted  to  it.  But  when  Mr.  Asbury  was  first 
recognized  as  general  assistant  by  the  irregular  Delaware  Con- 
ference of  1779,  the  largest  powers  of  Mr.  "Wesley  in  the  control 
of  Conference  action  were  expressly  bestowed  upon  him:  after 
hearing  the  debate  in  Conference  the  right  of  determination 
rested  with  him.  In  1780  it  was  decided  by  Asbury's  irregu- 
lar Conference  that  every  traveling  preacher  must  hold  an  an- 
nually renewed  license  signed  by  him.  When  reunion  with 
the  regular  Conference  in  Virginia  was  effected  in  the  same 
year,  Mr.  Asbury  was  requested  to  superintend  the  work  at 
large;  and  in  1782  he  was  unanimously  elected  to  preside  over 
the  American  Conferences  and  the  whole  work.  In  1783  his 
position  is  recognized  or  confirmed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  who  forbids 
the  American  Conference  to  receive  any  English  preachers  who 
are  reluctant  to  recognize  Asbury's  authority  as  general  assist- 
ant. By  the  double  tenure  of  Conference  election  and  Mr. 
Wesley's  confirmation  Asbury  holds  office  as  the  superintend- 
ent of  the  whole  work  when  the  Christmas  Conference  meets. 

In  September,  1784,  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Thomas  Coke, 
a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  to  the  office  of  superin- 
tendent for  the  American  work.  He  was  not  intended  to  su- 
persede Asbury,  but  to  be  a  joint  superintendent  with  him. 
This  third  ordination  Mr.  Wesley  justified  on  the  ground  (1) 
that  by  the  clearest  providential  appointment  he  was  himself 
as  much  a  scriptural  bishop  as  any  man  in  Europe;  (2)  that  no 
bishop  at  that  time  exercised  any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in 
America;  (3)  that  the  three  orders  of  bishops,  presbyters,  and 
deacons  are  plainly  described,  though  not  enjoined,  in  the  New 
Testament;  (4)  that  three  grades  of  ministers  generally  ob- 
tained in  the  Churches  of  the  apostolic  age;  (5)  that  the  pres- 
byters of  the  apostolic  Church  of  Alexandria  continued  for  two 
hundred  years  to  ordain  their  own  bishops;  and  (6)  that  the 
right  of  ordination  to  all  grades  of  the  ministry  thus  inhering 
in  presbyters,  he,  being  a  Church-of-England  presbyter,  and 
divinely  called  and  providentially  designated  to  the  office  and 
work  of  a  scriptural  bishop,  could  rightfully  proceed,  and  was, 
according  to  the  law  of  an  inexorable  necessity  (which  Hookei 


TlIK  EPISCOPACY. 


5 


and  many  other  Church-o£-Englaud  authorities  recognized  as 
valid)  in  duty  bound  to  proceed,  to  the  ordination  of  Thomas 
Coke,  a  coequal  presbyter  o£  the  same  Church,  to  the  episco- 
pal oflSce,  and  of  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Vasey  as  presbyters, 
they  having  first  been  ordained  to  the  diacouate.  This,  it  is  be- 
lieved, is  as  succinct  and  complete  an  analysis,  from  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's own  standpoint,  as  it  is  possible  to  give,  every  item  of 
which  can  be,  and  has  been,  substantiated  by  direct  and  indu- 
bitable historical  evidence.  Within  eight  months  of  Coke's  or- 
dination Charles  Wesley  declared  that  he  could  scarcely  yet 
believe  it,  that  in  his  eighty-second  year  his  brother  had  as- 
sumed the  episcopal  character,  ordained  elders,  consecrated  a 
bishop,  and  sent  him  to  America  to  ordain  others. 

Bishop  Coke  was  directed  on  his  arrival  in  America  to  ordain 
Mr.  Asbury  deacon,  elder,  and  superintendent  according  to  the 
three  ordination  forms  of  the  Church  of  England  provided  for 
the  purpose,  his  own  letters  of  episcopal  orders  from  the  hand 
of  Mr.  Wesley  having  declared  that  the  Methodists  of  North 
America  still  adhered  to  the  doctrines  and  discipline  of  the 
Church  of  England.  Mr.  Asbury  refusing  to  act  in  the  capacity 
of  a  superintendent  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment,  without  the 
unanimous  choice  of  the  preachers,  the  Christmas  Conference 
was  called  on  his  motion,  and  it  was  agreed  to  form  the  Ameri- 
can Methodists  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  with  superintendents, 
elders,  and  deacons.  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  were  unani- 
mously elected  to  the  superintendency,  and  on  three  successive 
days,  December  25th,  26th,  and  27th,  1784,  Bishop  Coke  or- 
dained Francis  Asbury  deacon,  elder,  and  superintendent, 
being  assisted  by  three  elders  at  the  third  ordination.  This 
was  paralleled  by  the  three  successive  ordinations  which  Mr. 
Wesley  himself  bestowed  on  Alexander  Mather. 

The  exact  method  of  the  election  of  Asbury  and  the  recep- 
tion of  Coke  we  do  not  know,  as  the  original  minutes  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  are  not  extant.  But  in  1789  the  Annual 
Conferences,  in  which  were  many  members  who  had  sat  in  the 
Christmas  Conference,  and  which,  since  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  not  then  been  instituted,  exercised  full  legislative 
powers,  inserted  in  the  Discipline  substantially  this  account: 
that  Wesley  sent  over  three  regularly  ordained  clergy,  hav- 
ing set  apart  one  of  them  to  the  episcopal  oflSce,  delivered  to 


6 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


him  letters  of  episcopal  orders,  and  commissioned  him  to  set 
apart  Francis  Asbury  to  the  same  eiDiscopal  ofiice,  after  his  or- 
dination as  deacon  and  elder;  and  that  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence did  unanimously  receive  these  two  persons  as  their  bishops, 
being  fully  satisfied  of  the  validity  of  their  episcopal  ordi- 
nation. 

These  joint  superintendents,  for  so  Mr.  Wesley  designated 
them  in  the  circular  letter  which  was  the  basis  of  the  work  of 
the  Christmas  Conference,  were  empowered  to  ordain  superin- 
tendents, elders,  and  deacons  elected  by  the  Conferences  and  ap- 
proved by  themselves;  to  preside  in  the  Conferences;  to  fix  the 
appointments  of  the  preachers;  to  receive,  change,  or  suspend 
preachers  in  the  intervals  of  the  Conferences;  and  to  receive 
and  decide  appeals  from  preachers  and  people.  They  were 
rigidly  responsible  to  the  Conferences,  which  had  power  to  ex- 
pel them  for  improper  conduct  if  they  saw  it  necessary.  When 
the  Quadrennial  General  Conference  was  organized  in  1792, 
and  until  1808,  their  power,  their  usefulness,  themselves  were 
entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  superintendency  in  America  differed  from  the  beginning 
from  the  superintendency  in  England  in  that  it  was  double- 
headed — one  superintendency  administered  by  two  coordinate 
men.  The  one  office  is  now  (1895)  administered  by  ten  men 
in  one  branch  of  Episcopal  Methodism  and  sixteen  in  another. 
Each  of  these  has  at  all  times  in  every  place  all  the  powers  of 
the  office.  So  far  as  constitutional  law  or  statutory  provision 
is  concerned  there  is  neither  subordination  of  office  nor  divis- 
ion of  powers  among  them.  Nor  does  there  exist  outside  of  the 
office  itself  any  provision  short  of  constitutional  reorganization, 
for  the  imposition  of  limitations  upon,  or  the  creation  of  di- 
visions of  duty,  or  diversities  of  administration,  in  the  one 
office.  The  episcopal  office  or  general  superintendency  is  in 
the  most  unqualified  sense  one;  and  there  exists  no  power  in 
the  Church,  under  its  present  constitution,  to  modify  after  any 
manner  or  in  any  degree  this  primary  unity.  Any  division  or 
subordination  is  of  internal  origin  among  the  persons  who  for 
the  time  being  administer  the  one  office;  and  such  adjustment 
has  no  higher  sanction  or  more  binding  obligation  than  the 
mutual,  voluntary  agreements  of  these  persons  among  them- 
selves can  give  it.    If  a  general  principle  is  sought  which  should 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


7 


serve  as  a  sufficient  warrant  for  such  voluntary  and  temporary 
self-divestment  of  the  pow  ers  of  general  suijeriutendency  over 
the  whole  Church  on  the  part  of  any  one  person  occupying 
with  his  colleagues  the  episcopal  office,  it  would  perhaps  be 
found  in  this:  that  only  the  strictest  necessities  of  adminis- 
tration could  warrant  it.  Consequently  the  Church  has  acqui- 
esced in  the  temporary  assignment  of  episcopal  districts,  that 
is,  a  voluntary  limitation  of  the  general  superiutendency  of  any 
one  bishop  as  to  territory  for  the  time  being,  because  it  is  a 
strict  necessity  of  administration  from  which  there  is  no  escape. 
There  is,  however,  a  history  involving  something  of  a  strug- 
gle, by  which  this  solution  was  finally  reached.  On  the  other 
hand,  any  attempt  at  the  voluntary  creation  of  permanent  epis- 
copal districts,  that  is,  the  temporal  as  well  as  the  territorial 
limitation  of  the  general  superintendency  of  any  one  bishop, 
would  doubtless  be  resisted  by  the  Church,  because  unwar- 
ranted by  the  exigencies  of  actual  administration. 

Such  an  office  and  such  officers  are  unparalleled  in  the  his- 
tory of  ecclesiastical  government.  In  the  peculiar  character- 
istic we  have  been  analyzing  lie  both  its  weakness  and  its 
strength,  its  danger  and  its  safety.  From  this  standpoint 
the  episcopal  office  contains  within  itself  the  law  of  its  own 
life  and  the  law  of  its  own  death;  it  is  self-preservative  and 
self-destructive.  Its  freedom  from  difference  and  dissension; 
its  harmony  of  counsel  and  unity  of  wise  and  energetic  action, 
are  a  conditio  sine  qua  nan,  not  only  of  its  efficiency,  but  of  its 
very  life.  Should  these  characteristics  be  permanently  lost, 
the  office,  as  it  has  existed,  must  perish.  It  is  almost  safe  to 
predict  that  it  will  never  become  extinct  in  any  other  manner. 
But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  self-preservation  is  more  than  the 
first  law  of  life,  namely,  its  constant  and  invariable  instinct, 
this  very  fact  is  a  surer  guarantee  than  any  law  imposed  from 
without  could  possibly  be  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  office.  The 
episcopal  office  as  known  in  American  Methodism  is  as  sensi- 
tively responsive  in  its  self-regulation  and  as  certainly  self- 
preservative  as  any  governmental  machine  that  has  ever  been 
devised  by  the  wit  of  man. 

From  the  a  priori  standpoint  this  would  not  have  been  sup- 
posed. So  complex  and  unprecedented  an  arrangement  as  the 
administration  of  one  office  by  many  coordinate  officers,  with 


8 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


BO  little  explicit  statute  and  so  much  latitude  for  individual 
judgment  and  action,  would  have  been  prejudged  a  failure. 
The  experience  of  one  hundred  and  ten  years  demonstrates  the 
contrary.  But  the  conditions  of  its  successful  operation,  after 
its  original  projection,  were  not  the  offspring  of  a  moment. 
They  were  a  growth.    That  growth  let  us  study. 

Under  the  resolution  of  submission  adopted  by  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  Mr.  Wesley  contended  for  a  special  and  inde- 
pendent control  of  the  general  superintendents  of  American 
Methodism,  which  extended  in  his  judgment,  it  is  said,  to  their 
removal  from  the  continent.  However  great  or  little  the  power 
claimed,  the  whole  of  it  was  swept  away  in  an  instant  and 
forever  in  1787,  when  the  resolution  of  submission  was  repealed, 
and  Mr.  Wesley's  name  was  for  the  time  left  off  the  minutes, 
and  his  nominees  for  the  episcopal  office  were  rejected.  Trouble 
nevermore  arose  from  this  source. 

The  very  nature  of  the  episcopal  office  in  Methodism  seems 
to  imply  its  incumbency  by  the  fewest  possible  number  of  men 
who  can  administer  it  with  efficiency  in  the  general  oversight  of 
the  whole  Church.  Notwithstanding  the  obvious  solicitations 
to  a  contrary  course,  this  principle,  which  has  never  been  em- 
bodied in  constitution  or  statute,  has  governed  all  the  General 
Conferences  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning.  From  1784  to 
1816,  almost  a  third  of  a  century,  there  were  really  never  more 
than  two  contemporary  bishops;  first  Coke  and  Asbury;  then 
Asbury  and  Whatcoat;  and  finally  Asbury  and  McKendree. 
Coke's  active  (though  from  the  beginning  intermittent)  super- 
intendency  terminated  with  his  return  to  Europe  in  the  spring 
of  1798,  though  he  came  to  America  to  preside  in  the  General 
Conferences  of  1800  and  1804.  Both  of  those  bodies,  as  well 
as  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  consented,  with  various 
provisos  and  conditions,  to  his  residence  in  Europe.  Asbury 
had  Whatcoat  for  a  colleague  from  1800  to  the  latter's  death 
in  1806;  and  McKendree  occupied  the  same  relation  from  his 
election  in  1808  to  Asbury's  death  in  1816. 

From  1784  to  1808  the  office,  as  well  as  the  officers,  was  at 
the  mercy,  first  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  from  1785  to  1792, 
and  then  of  the  Quadrennial  General  Conference,  from  1792  to 
1808.  Though  several  of  these  unlimited  and  supreme  General 
Conferences  had  before  them  various  questions  and  measures 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


9 


touching  the  sujjeriutendency  of  Bishop  Coke,  it  is  sufficient  to 
observe  here  that  all  of  them  treated  him  with  the  utmost  per- 
sonal consideration,  and  that  he  was  never  for  a  moment  dis- 
qualified for  the  performance  of  any  of  his  episcopal  duties 
when  present  in  America  to  discharge  them. 

Upon  Coke  and  Asbury  devolved  the  practical  task  of  first 
solving  the  problem  of  the  actual  administration  of  one  ofiice 
by  two  coordinate  ofiicers.  There  is  evidence,  besides  Asbury's 
own  writings,  that  his  general  bearing  toward  Coke  was  that  of 
the  utmost  deference.  It  was  the  habit  of  the  two  bishops  to 
attend  all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  company  whenever  Coke 
was  in  the  United  States.  Division  of  the  work  seemed  neither 
necessary  nor  desirable.  In  Coke's  absence  Asbury  discharged 
alone  all  the  episcopal  duties.  He  always  conceded  the  presi- 
dential chair  of  an  Annual  Conference  to  Coke  when  he  was 
present.  In  1787,  at  Charleston,  at  the  first  session  of  the 
South  Carolina  Conference,  Asbury,  though  opposed  to  the  ac- 
tion, acquiesced  when  Dr.  Coke  proposed  Kichard  Whatcoat's 
name  from  the  chair  as  Mr.  Wesley's  nominee  for  the  episco- 
pacy, and  the  Conference  elected  him.  It  is  probable  that  As- 
bury generally  exerted  a  controlling  influence  in  making  the 
appointments,  since  he  alone  enjoyed  personal  familiarity  with 
the  work  and  the  workmen.  There  was,  however,  consultation 
with  Coke,  who  seldom  or  never  held  a  Conference  without  the 
presence  of  Asbury.  The  nature  of  the  business,  as  well  as  the 
state  of  his  health,  necessitated  Asbury's  retirement  during 
much  of  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  and  Asbury  refers 
expressly  to  Coke's  presidency;  we  find  Coke  presiding  in 
1796,  also,  until  the  nature  of  the  business  brought  about  his 
retirement  in  turn;  in  1800,  though  there  were  three  bishops 
after  the  election  of  Whatcoat,  the  journal  is  attested  by  the 
single  signature  of  "T.  Coke,  President;"  and  in  1804  Coke, 
as  senior  bishop,  so  Quinn  tells  us,  presided.  Thus  the  idea 
of  rotation  among  the  bishops  in  the  presidency  of  the  General 
Conference  had  not  been  suggested.  Coke  alone  being  almost 
exclusively  president.  Contemporary  bishops  were  so  few  that 
the  custom  of  rotation  did  not  obtain  until  quite  late  in  the 
history  of  General  Conferences. 

That  the  nature  of  the  office  and  the  relations  of  the  officers 
among  themselves  were  not  regarded  as  permanently  settled 


10 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


in  the  period  from  1792  to  1808  is  evident  from  several  sources. 
In  1797  Asbury  nominated  Lee,  Poytliress,  and  Whatcoat  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  for  "assistant  bishops."  Permanent 
coordination  of  new  bishops  with  himself  Asbury  seemed  as 
yet  not  to  regard  as  feasible  or  desirable.  Before  the  election 
of  Whatcoat  in  1800  various  modifications  of  the  new  bishop's 
powers  were  proposed  in  the  General  Conference,  all  of  which 
were  promptly  and  decisively  rejected.  Coke  moved  that  the 
new  bishop  when  presiding  in  the  absence  of  Asbury  should 
read  the  draft  of  appointments  once  in  Conference  for  sug- 
gestion and  amendment  before  their  final  announcement.  This, 
though  the  English  plan,  the  Americans  did  not  care  to  vote 
upon,  and  it  was  withdrawn.  Stationing  committees  of  three 
or  four  to  be  appointed  by  the  Conference,  to  advise  or  to  decide 
appointments,  were  rejected;  and  the  new  bishop  was  left  in 
every  respect  on  a  perfect  parity  with  Asbury.  Thus  was  more 
clearly  defined  and  fixed  the  "plan  of  itinerant  general  super- 
intendency"  which  was  to  be  embodied  in  the  constitution  of 
1808. 

Asbury  and  Whatcoat  followed  the  old  rule  of  attending  all 
the  Conferences  in  company,  which  was  so  general  that  the 
General  Conference  had  thought  it  unnecessary  to  make  it 
mandatory.  Asbury,  doubtless,  usually  occupied  the  chair,  and 
the  two  bishops  made  the  appointments  after  consultation  to- 
gether, in  which  it  is  natural  to  suppose  Asbury  exerted  a  de- 
cisive influence.  Despite  his  legal  parity  with  Asbury,  What- 
coat was  practically  little  more  than  an  "  assistant  bishop." 

In  1805  Coke  proposed  to  come  to  America  on  the  express 
condition  that  the  seven  Confei-ences  should  be  divided  be- 
tween himself  and  Asbury,  four  and  three,  and  three  and  four, 
each  exchanging  with  the  other  annually.  This  is  the  earliest 
foreshadowing  of  the  present  plan  of  episcopal  districts  of  an- 
nual tenure.  But  it  also  indicates  that  despite  the  equality 
which  the  General  Conference  had  bestowed  upon  Whatcoat, 
his  position  was  practically  so  subordinate  or  indefinite  that 
Coke  makes  no  mention  of  him,  probably  supposing  that  he 
would  by  turns  assist  both  the  older  bishops  as  he  was  then 
assisting  Asbury. 

In  1807,  after  the  death  of  Whatcoat,  a  scheme  originated  in 
the  New  York  Conference,  and  was  approved  by  the  New  En- 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


11 


gland,  the  Western,  and  the  South  Carolina  Conferences,  for 
forty-nine  electors,  seven  from  each  of  the  seven  Conferences, 
who  should  meet  at  Baltimore  on  July  4  to  organize  and  estab- 
lish a  permanent  superintendeucy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  At  this  period  it  is  evident  that  little  connected 
with  the  superintendeucy  was  regarded  as  organized,  estab- 
lished, or  permanent.  Kot  only  could  any  General  Conference 
overturn  the  office,  but  the  Annual  Conferences  assumed  to  be 
fully  competent  to  remodel  it  at  will.  Precipitation  and  crys- 
tallization occurred  in  1808. 

At  this  time  the  constitution  was  established.  It  excepted 
episcopacy  and  the  plan  of  itinerant  general  superiutendency 
from  statutory  modification  by  the  General  Conference.  Asbury 
was  now  the  sole  occupant  of  the  episcopal  office  itinerating  in 
America.  McKendree  was  elected  his  colleag-ue,  and  Asbury 
and  he  resumed  at  once  the  now  established  rule  of  attending 
all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  company.  McKendree  was  a  man 
of  high  understanding  and  pronounced  character,  and  perfectly 
aware  from  the  beginning  of  his  constitutional  equality  with  As- 
bury. He  always  shared  in  the  public  presidency  of  the  Con- 
ferences. As  late  as  1811,  however,  Asbury  was  able  to  attend 
all  the  Conferences  in  a  single  year;  though,  as  his  infirmities 
increased,  and  his  confidence  grew  in  McKendree's  wisdom  and 
really  great  executive  abilities,  he  gradually  relinquished  the 
presidential  chair  to  him,  and  confined  himself  to  the  work  of 
making  the  appointments.  Not  until  1815,  at  the  session  of  the 
Tennessee  Conference,  did  Asbury  "  resign  the  stations  "  wholly 
to  McKendree.  So  far  as  appointments  were  concerned,  up  to 
their  last  round  before  Asbury's  death,  McKendree  suffered  the 
senior  bishop  to  prepare  the  preliminary  draft;  he  then  made 
such  changes  as  seemed  necessary  after  consultation  with  the 
elders  in  counciL  Asbury  refused  to  the  last  to  depend  upon  the 
advice  of  these  officers  in  "cabinet."  On  the  other  hand,  Mc- 
Kendree refused  as  early  as  1811  to  make  the  final  revision  of 
the  appointments  furnished  by  Asbury  without  the  aid  of  the 
presiding  elders.  He  became  thus  the  originator  of  the  "  cab- 
inet," which  rests  to  this  day  on  the  basis  of  general  usage. 

In  1816,  Asbury  having  died,  George  and  Eoberts  were 
added  to  the  board  of  bishops.  For  the  first  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church,  there  were  three  active  contemporary 


12 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


bishops.  Up  to  this  time  uot  even  a  temporary  division  of  the 
Conferences  into  what  are  now  called  episcopal  districts  had 
ever  been  eflfected.  McKendree,  George,  and  Koberts  divided 
the  work  among  themselves,  though  McKendree  strongly 
leaned  to  their  continuing  as  much  in  company  in  the  dis- 
charge of  their  duties  as  the  nature  of  the  work  would  allow. 
From  McKendree's  journal  it  appears  that  the  following  princi- 
ples were  accepted  by  the  three  bishops:  (1)  the  necessary  divi- 
sion of  the  Conferences  among  the  three  constitutional  superin- 
tendents; (2)  theannual  exchange  of  districts  among  the  bishops; 
(3)  the  responsible  presidency  of  the  bishop  to  whom  a  Con- 
ference was  assigned;  and  (4)  the  attendance  of  all  or  any  of 
the  bishops  as  counselors  or  assistants  at  such  Conferences  as 
they  could  reach  beyond  the  limits  of  their  own  districts.  All 
of  these  principles,  except,  perhaps,  the  last,  are  now  generally 
accepted.  Whether  the  more  formal  recognition  of  the  fourth 
is  not  desirable  is,  at  least,  a  question.  "We  have  now  general 
superintendents  in  the  third  quadrennium  of  their  episcopal 
supervision  who  have  not  yet  visited  officially  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  in  the  United  States.  The  personal  familiarity  of 
each  superintendent  with  the  entire  work  and  all  the  workmen 
of  the  vast  itinerant  field  is  certainly  desirable.  This  familiarity 
ought  to  be  acquired  as  speedily  as  possible.  Visiting  bishops 
seldom  appear  at  the  Annual  Conferences.  It  must  be  that  dif- 
ficult and  delicate  questions  often  arise  in  which  the  president 
of  the  Conference  would  gladly  consult  with  a  colleague  if  he 
were  at  hand.  The  administration  could  often  be  unified  and 
strengthened.  It  seems  to  have  been  a  principle  generally  ac- 
cepted for  a  half-century  as  implied  in  the  very  nature  of  the 
■episcopal  office  that  every  bishop  was  in  duty  bound  to  be  pres- 
ent at  all  the  Annual  Conferences  which  his  own  special  duties 
would  permit  him  to  reach.  If  this  plan  should  at  present  be 
regarded  as  too  onerous,  or,  on  any  ground  undesirable,  it  might 
still  be  feasible  and  beneficial  for  each  bishop  to  be  assigned, 
in  the  plan  of  episcopal  visitations,  not  only  to  his  own  proper 
episcopal  district,  but  also  to  one  other  district,  as  the  com- 
panion and  adviser  of  a  colleague,  who  would  still  remain  the 
responsible  ijresident  of  his  own  Conferences. 


CHAPTEE  11. 

The  Episcopacy  (Continued). 

In  the  preceding  chapter  it  was  intimated  that  the  now  uni- 
versally accepted  plan  of  episcopal  districts  of  annual  tenure, 
though  a  most  simple  and  necessary  solution  of  the  problem  of 
one  joint,  itinerant,  general  superintendency  administered  by 
many  bishops,  was  not  reached  and  adopted  without  something 
of  a  struggle.  McKendree's  hesitation  in  1816,  when  such  a 
division  was  first  made,  is  evident.  That  hesitancy  doubtless 
rested  on  a  latent  constitutional  scruple.  In  1820,  when  the 
plan  had  been  operated  for  a  quadrennium  by  McKendree, 
George,  and  Roberts,  Joshua  Soule,  author  and  rigid  construc- 
tionist of  the  constitution,  gravely  doubted  its  constitutionality. 
There  were  other  perplexities  besides  the  elective  presiding 
eldership,  unconstitutionally  ordained  and  then  suspended  by 
the  General  Conference  of  that  year,  which  involved  him  in  a 
torrent  of  difficulties  and  quite  drank  up  his  spirit.  In  a  letter 
which  Mr.  Soule  addressed  at  this  time  to  Bishop  McKen- 
dree concerning  his  own  refusal  to  accept  the  episcopal  office, 
to  which  he  bad  been  elected,  occur  the  following  significant 
sentences  which  have  hitherto  escaped  notice  and  comment: 
"I  have  seriously  reflected  on  the  subject  of  a  partial  (sec- 
tional) visitation  of  the  Conferences.  I  have  attempted  to  ana- 
lyze this  in  relation  to  our  plan  of  itinerant  general  superin- 
tendency, and  I  perceive  a  dissonance  which  I  cannot  harmo- 
nize. I  apprehend  that  my  path,  should  I  proceed,  would 
inevitably  lead  me  to  a  point  where  I  should  be  at  issue  with 
my  predecessors  and  seniors  in  office."  That  is  to  say,  a  vol- 
untary, even  though  temporary,  relinquishment  of  episcopal 
duty  and  prerogative,  in  that  continuous  oversight  of  the  whole 
Church,  to  which  every  superintendent  is  chosen  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  without  restriction  of  any  sort  (and,  indeed, 

(13) 


14 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


without  the  constitutional  possibility  of  such  restriction), 
seemed  to  Mr.  Soule,  at  the  end  of  the  first  quadrennium  of  the 
now  established  usage  of  divided  ei3iscopal  oversight  and  re- 
sponsibility, unconstitutional.  These  duties  and  responsibili- 
ties imposed  by  the  General  Conference,  he  doubted  the  right 
of  any  individual  bishop  to  surrender;  and  this  difficulty  was 
among  the  complications  that  caused  Mr.  Soule  to  decline  epis- 
copal ordination  in  1820.  Another  quadrennium  of  the  smooth 
and  efficient  working  of  the  new  plan  by  the  three  bishops  who 
had  felt  obliged  by  the  practical  exigencies  of  administration 
to  inaugurate  it,  together  with  the  continued  acquiescence  of 
the  entire  Cliurch,  removed  Mr.  Soule's  constitutional  scruple. 
His  questions  were  silenced  at  last  only  by  the  inexorable 
principle  that  necessity  knows  no  law;  and,  after  his  election 
and  ordination  in  1824,  he  was  not  brought  into  collision  with 
his  senior  colleagues,  as  he  had  feared  would  be  the  case  had  he 
become  a  bishop  in  1820;  for,  from  that  time  forward,  it  was 
an  evident  impossibility  for  all  the  bishops  to  attend  all  the 
Conferences.  For  many  years  afterwards — certainly  to  a  period 
later  than  the  division  of  the  Church — it  was  the  custom  for 
all  the  bishops  present  to  share  the  presidency  of  an  Annual 
Conference,  and  to  enter  the  stationing  room  to  assist  in  mak- 
ing the  appointments  of  the  preachers.  It  may  indeed  be 
questioned,  as  w^as  suggested  in  the  last  chapter,  whether  the 
spirit  of  the  constitution,  which  ordains  joint,  itinerant,  gen- 
eral superintendency,  does  not  suggest,  according  to  Soule's 
constitutional  scruple,  the  presence  of  disengaged  superintend- 
ents at  the  seat  of  such  Annual  Conferences  as  they  can  reach. 

At  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  of  1824  there  were 
five  general  superintendents:  McKendree,  George,  Roberts, 
Soule,  and  Hedding.  This  number  introduced  a  complexity 
which  it  is  evident,  in  the  view  of  the  General  Conference,  cre- 
ated a  considerable  strain  on  the  theory  and  practice  of  the 
general  superintendency  as  it  had  hitherto  existed.  Some 
members  believed  the  Conference  was  authorized  to.  divide  the 
Clnirch  into  episcopal  districts  for  the  quadrennium;  but  Dr. 
AVilliam  Winans,  of  Mississippi,  vindicated  the  constitutional 
view  in  a  thrilling  speech.  The  Conference,  on  recommenda- 
tion of  the  episcopal  committee,  adopted  a  resolution  recom- 
mending an  annual  bishops'  meeting  (whose  prime  object 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


15 


seems  to  have  been  to  unify  the  whole  episcopal  administra- 
tion), and  allowing  the  bishops  a  choice  between  two  suggested 
plans:  (1)  the  division  of  the  Church  into  several  "episcopal 
departments,"  with  one  or  more  bishops  in  each;  or  (2)  to  form 
a  plan  of  traveling  through  the  Church  "  in  a  circuit  after  each 
other" — language  which  was  evidently  meant  to  describe  the 
plan  hitherto  pursued. 

All  the  bishops  did  not  understand  this  action  alike. 
Throughout  the  ensuing  quadrennium  George  and  Hedding 
rode  the  northern  circuit  and  Roberts  and  Soule  the  southern, 
while  McKendree,  though  the  senior  and  superannuated,  was 
the  sole  general  superintendent  of  the  whole  Church  in  the 
sense  in  which  Asbury  had  understood  and  exercised  it.  This 
plan  was  virtually  the  adoption  of  the  first  alternative  suggested 
by  the  General  Conference,  and  the  evils  of  sectional  episco- 
pal visitation  began  immediately  to  appear.  McKendree  by 
no  means  concurred  in  the  new  order  of  things,  and  urged  with 
all  proper  vehemence  that  the  bishops  on  the  northern  circuit 
should  exchange  with  those  on  the  southern.  Bishop  George, 
on  the  other  hand,  declared  that  "  visiting  all  the  Conferences 
and  becoming  jointly  responsible  "  was  to  him  a  "  new  thought," 
and  believed  that  the  plan  of  episcopal  visitation  adopted  in 
1824  was  for  the  quadrennium,  as  the  labor  of  a  continental 
superintendency  was  to  him  insupportable.  He  seems  to  have 
been  under  the  impression  that  the  General  Conference  had 
authorized  the  restriction  of  the  episcopal  powers  of  the  sev- 
eral bishops  to  the  "  departments  "  to  which  they  were  tempo- 
rarily assigned;  for,  when  McKendree  and  Soule  visited  Phil- 
adelphia in  1826,  to  attend  the  first  bishops'  meeting  ever  held, 
George,  who,  with  Hedding,  was  holding  the  Conference,  ig- 
nored the  presence  of  McKendree  and  Soule  in  their  official 
character,  unaccountably  failing  to  invite  either  of  them  to 
share  in  the  public  presidency  of  the  Conference  or  to  enter 
the  stationing  room  to  assist  in  making  the  appointments.  This 
conduct  was  not  only  disrespectful  to  the  senior  bishop,  to  say 
nothing  of  Bishop  Soule,  but,  according  to  the  views  and  usages 
which  had  universally  prevailed,  was  a  serious  breach  of  the 
constitution,  since,  in  a  sense,  the  failure  of  Bishop  George  to 
recognize  the  visiting  bishops  in  their  ofiicial  character  was  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  a  bishop  to  impose  limitations  upon  the 


16 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


joint  superintend  en  cy  of  his  colleagues  in  the  episcopal  office. 
Bishop  George's  position  was  a  novelty  in  episcopal  administra- 
tion. While  its  explanation  is  probably  to  be  sought,  in  part 
at  least,  in  Bishop  George's  misunderstanding  of  the  action  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1824,  his  conduct  seemed  to  Bishop 
McKendree  so  serious  an  infraction  of  the  established  and  uni- 
versal usage  of  the  bishops,  and  of  the  constitution  itself,  that 
he  actually  drew  up  charges  against  Bishop  George  with  a 
view  to  presenting  them  to  the  General  Conference  of  1828.' 
Fortunately  the  senior  bishop  stopped  short  of  this  extreme 
step,  or  the  rupture,  along  a  sectional  line  but  on  constitutional 
principles,  which  had  been  threatening  since  1820,  might  sooner 
have  been  precipitated. 

In  1832  the  General  Conference  sought  again  to  give  relief 
in  the  difficulties  of  joint,  itinerant,  general  oversight,  and 
passed  a  resolution  that,  considering  the  great  extent  of  the 
work,  the  Conference  deemed  it  inexpedient  to  require  each 
bishop  to  travel  throughout  the  Church  during  the  recess  of 
the  General  Conference.  To  avoid  all  misunderstanding,  the 
bishops,  probably  on  the  suggestion  of  McKendree  and  Soule 
in  their  private  conferences,  asked  the  General  Conference  for 
a  categorical  answer,  without  debate,  to  the  following  question: 
"  "Was  it  the  intention  of  the  General  Conference,  by  the  reso- 
lution above  alkided  to,  simply  to  relieve  the  bishops  from  the 
influence  of  the  resolution  passed  at  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence on  the  same  subject,  and  to  leave  them  now  at  liberty  on 
their  joint  and  several  responsibility  to  make  such  arrange- 
ments among  themselves  for  the  entire  administration,  and  for 
the  visitation  of  the  Annual  Conferences  as  they  shall  judge 
most  conducive  to  the  general  good;  and  without  designing  to 
give  any  direction  or  advice  whether  it  be  or  be  not  expedient 
for  each  of  the  bishops,  in  the  course  of  the  four  years,  to  visit 
each  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  should  they  themselves  find  it 
convenient  and  practicable,  and  judge  it  for  the  general  good 
so  to  do?"  This  carefully  framed  question,  which  seems  to  us 
to  bear  the  earmarks  of  Bishop  Soule's  composition,  was  an- 
swered in  the  affirmative;  and,  so  far  as  our  inspection  of  Gen- 
eral Conference  Journals  will  warrant  so  broad  a  statement, 

>  A  copy  of  these  charges  in  Bishop  McKendree's  handwriting  is  in  the 
possession  of  the  writer. 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


17 


later  General  Conferences  have  for  the  most  part,  if  not  en- 
tirely, left  the  bishops  to  manage  questions  of  this  nature 
among  themselves,  without  direction  or  advice.  Certainly  so 
it  was  in  1811-45  when  the  bishops,  by  consultation  and  agree- 
ment among  themselves,  conformed  their  administration  to  the 
Plan  of  Separation  and  arranged  to  visit  all  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  dividing  Church,  "  the  editorial  decisions  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding."  The  question  of  the  bishops  in 
1832,  therefore,  with  the  reply  of  the  General  Conference,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  completion  of  the  development  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  one  joint,  itinerant,  general  superintendency 
by  many  bishops,  whose  practical  problems  Coke  and  Asbury 
had  first  faced  in  1781.  The  principles  involved  in  that  ques- 
tion and  reply  have  been  accepted  as  final  ever  since. 

In  1832  Andrew  and  Emory  were  added  to  the  episcopacy. 
In  illustration  of  the  remark  in  the  last  chapter,  a  glance  at  the 
following  table  may  serve  to  remind  our  readers  that  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  has  always  conformed  to  the  principle  of  placing 
as  few  men  in  the  episcopal  ofiice  as  could  efficiently  oversee 
the  whole  Church.  The  composition  of  the  college  of  bishops 
from  the  beginning  to  date  has  been  as  follows: 

1784-1800:  Coke  and  Asbury,  2. 

1800-1808:  Asbury  and  Whatcoat  (to  1806),  2. 

1808-1816:  Asbury  and  McKendree,  2. 

1816-1824:  McKendree,  George,  and  Roberts,  3. 

1824-1832:  McKendree,  George  (to  1828),  Eobert5=,  Soule,  and 
Hedding,  4  or  5. 

1832-1836:  McKendree  (to  1835),  Roberts,  Soule,  Hedding,  An- 
drew, and  Emory  (to  1835),  4,  5,  or  6. 

1836-1844:  Roberts  (to  1843),  Soule,  Hedding,  Andrew,  Waugb, 
and  Morris,  5  or  6. 

[Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.] 

1846-1854:  Soule,  Andrew,  Capers  (to  1855),  and  Paine  (Bascom, 
one  Conference),  4. 

1854-1866:  Soule,  Andrew,  Paine,  Pierce,  Early,  and  Kava- 
naugh,  6. 

1866-1870:  Soule  (to  1867),  Andrew  (to  1871),  Paine,  Pierce, 
Early  (to  1873),  Kavanaugh,  Wightman,  Marvin, 
Doggett,  and  McTyeire,  9  or  10,  but  3  superannuated. 

1870-1882:  Paine,  Pierce,  Kavanaugh,  Wightman,  Marvin  (to 
1877),  Doggett  (to  1880),  McTyeire,  and  Keener,  6, 
7,  or  8:  the  "  old  panel." 

1882-1886:  Pierce  (to  1884),  Kavanaugh  (to  1884),  McTyeire, 


18 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


Keener,  Wilson,  Faiker  (to  1865),  Granbery,  Har- 
grove, 5,  6,  or  8. 
1886-1890:  McTyeire  (to  1889),  Keener,  Wilson,  Granbery,  Har- 
grove, Duncan,  Galloway,  Hendrix,  and  Key,  8  or  9. 
1890-1894 :  Keener,  Wilson,  Granbery,  Hargrove,  Duncan,  Gal- 
loway, Hendrix,  Key,  Haygood,  and  Fitzgerald,  10. 
"  The  following  table  indicates  the  number  of  general  super- 
intendents in  proportion  to  the  number  of  members  of  the 
Church  and  of  traveling  preachers  at  the  close  of  each  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South: 


Traveling 

Members. 

Preachers, 

379 

340 

289 

,  116,528 

429 

  50,510 

248 

291 

  89,095 

435 

552 

449 

555 

 117,229 

48(5 

5781 

After  this  minute  historical  survey  of  the  development  of  the 
general  superintendency,  with  the  principles  which  underlie 
and  support  it,  we  are  prepared  for  a  sober  estimate  of  its  fu- 
ture. Its  sole  internal  danger  was  noticed  in  the  last  chapter: 
against  peril  from  that  source  the  very  conditions  of  its  life 
were  shown  to  be,  if  not  a  sufficient,  at  least  the  most  efficient, 
guard.  The  episcopate  must  continue  an  harmonious  unit  on  all 
vital  and  permanent  factors  of  administration,  or  fall  to  pieces 
and  perish.  Yet  even  on  this  point  fears  have  begun  to  be  ex- 
pressed in  our  sister  Methodism.  Dr.  W.  F.  Warren  quotes  an 
unnamed  bishop  as  speaking  of  the  increasing  difficulty  of  main- 
taining uniformity  in  the  episcopal  administration.  Twenty 
men,  said  the  bishop,  cannot  so  easily  agree  and  carry  out  their 
agreements  as  five.  He  then  anticipated  the  time,  not  far  dis- 
tant, when  the  Church  would  need  the  services  of  fifty  bishops; 
but  with  any  such  number  he  thought  it  absolutely  impossible 
to  maintain  the  unity  of  administration  hitherto  maintained, 

1  These  figures,  with  the  exception  of  those  of  1894,  are  taken  from  Dr. 
P.  A.  Peterson's  "  Handbook  of  Southern  Methodism." 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


19 


and  imperatively  demauded.  The  same  bishop  expressed  the 
decided  opinion  that  if  relief  were  sought  in  the  districting  of 
the  bishops  the  plan  "w-ould  prove  fatal,  and  declared  that 
preachers  would  not  receive  the  less  desirable  appointments 
year  after  year  from  the  same  man.  The  changing  presidency 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  is  an  essential  safeguard  of  the  ap- 
pointing power  and  of  the  itinerancy.  ^ 

Without  attaching  undue  weight  to  the  opinions  of  any  one 
man,  however  wise  and  experienced,  there  comes  into  view  at 
this  point  what  may  be  styled  the  external  danger  of  our  sujper- 
intendency,  which,  while  it  does  not  threaten  the  extiuction  of 
the  office,  may  involve  eventually  its  modification.  There  are 
undoubted  and  peculiar  advantages  attending  the  itinerant 
general  superintendency  as  it  exists  in  Methodism.  Hitherto 
these  advantages  have  been  essential  to  the  unity  and  extension 
of  the  Church.  There  are  also  undoubted  advantages  connected 
with  some  modified  form  of  districted  or  diocesan  episcopacy. 
This  appears,  in  part,  from  the  measure  of  success  our  bishops 
have  been  able  to  win  from  hard  conditions  in  the  case  of  col- 
leges situated  near  their  homes,  and  in  whose  management 
they  have  continuously  shared.  The  districted  or  diocesan 
bishop  secures  a  personal  familiarity  with  all  his  ministers  and 
their  charges,  together  with  every  important  spiritual,  elee- 
mosynary, educational,  and  material  interest  of  his  district — a 
familiarity  which,  under  present  conditions,  annually  becoming 
more  disadvantageous  with  the  expansion  of  the  Church,  is  not 
possible  to  one  of  our  general  superintendents.  On  the  other 
hand,  diocesan  episcopacy  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  Methodist 
system:  1866  has  been  the  only  time  at  which  the  adoption  of 
something  resembling  it  was  even  possible  in  our  own  Church. 
The  unity  of  the  Church  has  been  conditioned  largely  on  the 
unity  of  the  episcopacy.  As  we  have  shown  at  length  elsewhere, 
the  schism  in  the  college  of  bishops,  which  appeared  in  a  very 
pronounced  form  certainly  as  early  as  1820,  and  which  was  never 
entirely  healed  until  the  two  wings  of  the  Church  (divided  as 
the  bishops  were )  parted,  was,  after  all,  no  inconsiderable  fac- 
tor in  the  division  of  Episcopal  Methodism.  Hedding,  elected 
by  northern  votes,  visited  the  southern  wing  of  the  Church  but 
once  in  twenty  years — from  1824  to  1844.  Soule,  elected  by 
1"  Constitutional  Law  Questions,"  pp.  127, 128. 


20 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


southern  and  western  votes,  did  not  appear  in  his  native  New 
England  until  seven  years  after  he  became  a  bishop.  Dr.  War- 
ren affirms  that  "more  than  from  all  other  sources,  the  barriers  to 
organic  union  between  the  [Methodist  Episcopal]  Church  and 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  spring  out  of  the  histor- 
ic disruption  of  the  original  unity  of  episcopal  administration 
and  out  of  that  which  has  resulted  from  that  disruption."  ^ 

In  any  case,  certain  it  is  that  the  increase  of  the  territory, 
ministry,  and  membership  of  the  Church,  with  a  correspond- 
ing increase  of  the  number  of  Annual  Conferences  and  of  gen- 
eral superintendents,  brings  with  it  an  attenuation,  if  not  a 
positive  displacement,  of  the  plan  and  purpose  and  principles 
of  general  superintendency  as  it  was  originally  projected  and 
as  it  existed  in  the  earlier  history  of  the  Church.  The  larger 
the  Church  and  the  greater  the  number  of  superintendents,  the 
less  is  the  superintendency  of  any  one  of  these  bishops  general 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  originally  intended  to  be.  The 
very  success  of  the  superintendency  in  overseeing  and  edifying 
the  Church  thus  creates  a  limitation  upon  its  maintenance  in 
its  primitive  purity.  It  is  apparent  that  the  general  superin- 
tendency, while  in  form  and  principle  the  same,  with  the  ex- 
tended and  extending  Church  and  the  largely  increased  num- 
ber of  superintendents,  is  in  some  respects  very  different  from 
what  it  was  when  two,  three,  or  five  men  could  travel  through- 
out the  whole  Church  in  a  year,  or  at  most  two,  becoming  per- 
sonally acquainted  in  that  time  with  the  personnel  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  and  with  the  condition  and  needs  of  much 
of  the  work.  A  Church  with  fifty  Annual  Conferences  and  ten 
superintendents,  each  of  whom  holds  an  average  of  five  Con- 
ferences in  a  year,  puts  each  superintendent  at  such  a  disad- 
vantage that  it  requires  ten  years  for  him  to  fill  the  presiden- 
tial chair  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences.  By  the  time  he  will 
ordinarily  reach  the  same  Conference  a  second  time  (if  he  ever 
does)  his  former  knowledge  of  the  body  and  the  work  will  be 
of  little  avail.  In  the  other  branch  of  Episcopal  Methodism 
the  conditions  are  still  more  adverse,  and  the  limit  of  develop- 
ment has  already  been  reached.    In  case  of  the  organic  reunion 

1 "  Constitutional  Law  Questions,"'  p.  130.  Precisely  what  Dr.  Warren 
means  is  not  altogether  clear;  except  that  1844  created  a  division  of  episco- 
pal as  well  aa  General  Conference  jurisdiction. 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


21 


of  Episcopal  Methodism,  at  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury one  might  count  on  five  millions  of  members,  two  hundred 
Annual  Conferences  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  at  least  forty 
general  superintendents.  If  we  may  judge  from  the  representa- 
tions of  Dr.  Warren,  in  the  work  before  cited,  and  of  the  bish- 
op whom  he  there  quotes,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
even  now  confronted,  not  with  a  theory,  but  with  a  condition. 
This  condition  is  already  recognized  as  demanding  solution  by 
essential  readjustment  of  the  episcopal  office.  "The  question 
will  come  before  future  General  Conferences  again  and  again," 
says  Dr.  Warren,  "until,  in  the  evolution  of  our  itinerant  gen- 
eral superintendency,  some  marked  modification  is  reached." 

We  do  not  mean  to  give  undue  credence  or  importance  to  all 
the  gossip  that  floats  from  lip  to  lip;  but  still  it  is  evident,  from 
the  matter-of-course  announcements  that  constitute  part  of  the 
staple  news  of  our  weekly  exchanges  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  that  in  the  case  of  the  larger  city  and  town  charges 
of  that  Church  arrangements  for  preachers  are  in  many  cases 
made  by  direct  negotiation  between  official  boards  and  the 
preachers  themselves.  It  is  a  very  usual  item  of  news  in  the 
press  of  our  sister  Church  that  "  Rev.  Dr.  A.  B.  has  been  called 
to  C.  Church,  and  has  accepted;"  or  that  "Eev.  Dr.  D.  E.  has 
accepted  the  invitation  of  his  official  board  to  remain  with  them 
another  year;"  or  that  "Rev.  Dr.  F.  G.,  notwithstanding  the 
flattering  invitation  of  the  board  of  H.  Church  to  remain,  has 
notified  the  officers  of  the  church  that  he  will  not  continue  his 
pastorate,  but  has  accepted  the  invitation  of  the  board  of  1. 
Church,"  on  the  other  watershed  of  the  continent.  These  an- 
nouncements are  not  here  mentioned  for  criticism,  but  simply 
to  note  that  this  is  not  Methodism.  Such  arrangements  may 
be  the  necessary  outcome  of  a  "condition"  to  which  our  own 
Church  is  happily  as  yet  a  stranger.  We  know  not.  Our  sis- 
ter Church  has  reached  the  forks  of  the  road  and,  however 
unavoidably,  has  taken  the  unmethodistic  fork.  It  is  a  viola- 
tion of  the  fundamental  compact  between  preachers  and  people 
upon  which  the  itinerancy  has  always  been  held  to  rest;  it  is, 
indeed,  the  destruction  of  itinerancy,  except  as  the  time-limit 
forces  removals;  and  it  is  an  inevitably  fatal  invasion  of  the 
primitive  appointing  power.  On  the  other  hand,  the  smaller 
appointments  in  the  country  and  villages  are,  we  presume,  in 


22 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


the  hands  of  the  presiding  elders.  Thus  the  appointing  power 
of  the  superintendents  is  reduced  to  that  of  mere  arbitration 
between  the  conflicting  claims  of  rival  official  boards  in  one 
case,  and  of  rival  presiding  elders  in  the  other.  And  the  arbi- 
trator knows  less  of  the  men  and  Churches  than  those  over 
whom  he  is  appointed  an  arbitrator!  Such  arbitration,  however 
decisive  it  may  be,  is  a  widely  different  thing  from  the  general 
superintendency  as  originally  projected  in  Methodism  and  as  it 
largely  continues  to  be  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.  It  is  not  our  affair.  Our  advice  has  not  been  asked. 
We  do  not  mean  to  be  impertinent,  and  nobody  need  give  the 
least  attention  to  our  opinion.  But  we  nevertheless  entertain 
and  venture  to  express  the  humble  judgment  that  Dr.  Warren 
and  others  are  giving  themselves  needless  trouble  about  the 
"  future  "  of  their  episcopacy.  A  Methodist  bishop  is  not  kept 
on  hand  as  an  ornament  or  a  luxury. 

Evidently  there  is  a  limit  to  the  development  of  Methodist 
general  superintendency  along  the  lines  of  its  original  projec- 
tion. In  our  sister  Church  that  limit  has  been  approximated. 
In  the  case  of  the  reunion  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  the  limit 
would  be  far  overleaped.  What  would  be  left  of  the  original 
principles  with  twenty-five,  thirty,  fifty  bishops?  The  general 
superintendency  is  not  in  every  particular  adapted  to  a  world- 
wide Church  such  as  Episcopal  Methodism  is  rapidly  becoming, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  no  one  man  can  sustain  the  relation 
of  a  general  superintendent  to  the  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  a 
globe-embracing  Church.  Methodism  bids  fair  to  become  the 
leading  Protestant  world-force  of  the  twentieth  century.  Meth- 
odism is  not  yet  made:  it  is  yet  in  the  making.  There  are  still 
in  the  system  undeveloped  possibilities.  Its  flexibility  has  been 
its  salvation  in  the  past;  and  its  willingness  to  follow  the  open- 
ings of  Divine  Providence  has  been  the  uniform  condition  of 
its  largest  usefulness  to  the  world.  Keadjustment,  of  the  kind 
that  has  characterized  Methodism  at  every  critical  stage  of  its 
history,  is  sooner  or  later  inevitable.  It  would  be  a  pity  if 
either  Episcopal  Methodism  attempted  a  solution  of  the  new 
problem  independently  of  the  other,  especially  if  different  con- 
clusions were  reached  in  the  two  bodies.  Such  a  difference 
could  only  constitute  a  fresh  barrier  to  the  nearer  approach  of 
the  two  Churches.    Has  not  Providence  in  store  for  American 


THE  EPISCOPACY. 


23 


Episcojpal  Methodism  something  better  and  more  eflfective  than 
organic  reunion  could  possibly  bring?  Is  not  relief  to  come  to 
the  burdened  episcopacy  as  well  as  to  the  unwieldy  General 
Conferences  through  some  form  of  federation? 

We  may  glance  at  a  tentative  outline  of  suggestions.  (1)  Dr. 
Warren  proposes  a  combination  of  local  bishops,  who  might  be 
changed  qaadrennially,  with  a  few  general  superintendents.  He 
suggests  the  analogy  of  local  and  itinerant  preachers  and  of  dis- 
tricted presiding  elders,  and  calls  attention  to  the  present  plan 
of  missioQary  bishops  and  general  superintendents  in  his  own 
Church.  This  plan,  he  thinks,  of  local  and  general  bishops 
could  be  very  easily  extended  to  the  entire  Church,  and  would 
secure  at  least  a  four  years'  trial  of  a  local  bishop  before  his 
promotion  to  the  general  superintendency.  The  feasibility  of 
this  scheme  is  doubtful.  (2)  In  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  we  venture  to  suggest  that  for  the  present  a  bet- 
ter distribution  of  the  Annual  Conferences  over  the  entire  year 
would  give  all  necessary  relief.  A  single  bishop  could  preside 
over  eight  or  ten  Annual  Conferences,  and  sis  or  eight  eflfective 
men  could  do  the  whole  work.  If  with  this  change  the  limit  of 
charges  in  a  district  were  removed,  and  the  sphere  of  District 
Conference  business  and  of  the  duties  of  presiding  elders  en- 
larged, the  bishops,  by  a  careful  schedule  of  the  decreased  num- 
ber of  District  Conferences,  could  reach  many  more  of  them  and 
accomplish  much  more  in  them.  These  bodies  should  become 
preeminently  the  local  preachers'  court,  in  which  the  passage 
of  their  character,  their  assignment  to  specific  labor,  and  their 
election  to  orders  and  ordination  should  take  place.  Thus 
would  the  District  Conference  acquire  a  definite  and  essential 
sphere,  and  a  paralyzed  arm  of  our  ministry  be  revitalized.  (3) 
Finally,  federation  may  bring  to  American  Episcopal  Methodism 
a  division  of  this  continent  into  a  number  of  coordinate  Gen- 
eral Conference  jurisdictions.  When  the  time  came  to  multiply 
Annual  Conferences  they  were  multiplied — and  still  multiply. 
The  time  has  almost  come  to  multiply  General  Conferences,  to 
relieve  the  bodies  themselves,  the  episcopacy,  and  the  Church, 
so  extended  that  uniform  legislation  is  not  now  always  best  for 
every  part.  Such  General  Conferences  should  probably  include 
not  more  than  forty  or  fifty  Annual  Conferences  and  six  or  eight 
general  superintendents. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP. 

(25) 


CHAPTEE  III. 


The  Presiding  Eldership. 

By  tlie  common  consent  of  Christendom,  as  well  as  the  au- 
thority of  our  Thirteenth  Article  of  Eeligiou,  it  is  necessary 
to  the  existence  of  a  visible  Church  of  Christ  that  in  it  "  the 
sacraments"  be  "duly  administered  according  to  Christ's  ordi- 
nance, in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the 
same."  Among  the  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to 
the  orderly  and  ordinary  administration  of  the  sacraments  is 
an  ordained  ministry.  With  the  high-church  doctrine  of  the 
validity  of  lay-baptism,  and  the  low-church  or  no-church  doc- 
trine which  denies  a  distinction  between  the  ministry  and  the 
laity,  and  the  grounds  upon  which  these  doctrines  rest,  we 
have  nothing  to  do  in  this  connection.  Our  Methodist  arti- 
cle expressly  enumerates  three  essential  marks  of  a  Christian 
Church;  to  which,  if  we  add  the  fourth  clearly  implied  mark, 
we  shall  have  the  complete  Methodist  doctrine  of  the  visible 
Church  of  Christ,  distinguished  by  four  characteristics  as 
follows:  (1)  a  congregation  of  faithful  men;  (2)  an  ordained 
ministry;  (3)  the  proclamation  of  the  pure  word  of  God;  and 
(4)  the  due  administration  of  the  sacraments  according  to 
Christ's  ordinance. 

When  John  Wesley  sent  to  America,  by  the  hand  of  Thomas 
Coke,  the  Article  of  Religion  which  contains  these  doctrines,  the 
Methodist  societies  in  America  already  possessed  the  first  and 
the  third  of  these  marks.  Mr.  Wesley  designed  to  convey  to 
them  the  second  and  the  fourth,  and  thus  to  complete  in  Amer- 
ica the  organization  of  a  visible  Church  of  Christ.  He  did 
this  in  his  character  as  a  providentially  appointed  scriptural 
bishop,  by  bestowing  a  third  ordination  upon  a  presbyter  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  by  ordaining  two  of  his  lay 
preachers,  Eichard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey,  first  to  the 

(27) 


"28 


THE  MAKTXG  OF  METHODISM. 


diaconate,  and,  secondly,  to  the  presbyterate.  This  company 
he  dispatched  to  America,  empowered  and  directed  to  ordain 
others  according  to  "The  Form  and  Manner  of  Making  and 
Ordaining  of  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons,"  then  in 
use  in  the  Church  of  England  for  constituting  the  three  or- 
ders in  her  ministry.  Thus  did  Mr.  Wesley  bestow  upon  the 
American  Methodists  a  truly  protestant  episcopacy,  equally 
removed  from  a  papal  or  prelatical  episcopacy  on  the  one  hand, 
and  from  a  so-called  presbyterian  episcopacy  on  the  other; 
thus  did  the  venerable  Founder  of  the  people  called  Metho- 
dists, in  the  eighty-second  year  of  his  age,  and  forty  years  after 
the  meeting  of  the  first  Methodist  Conference  in  England, 
"  proceed  to  form  the  first  Church  that  ever  was  organized  un- 
der a  pure  republican  government,"  and  the  first  Episcopal 
Church  of  any  kind  that  was  ever  constituted  in  the  United 
States  of  America. 

Had  Methodist  orders  originated  at  Fluvanna,  instead  of  at 
Bristol  and  Baltimore;  in  Brokenback  Church  in  1779,  instead 
of  in  Lovely  Lane  Chapel  in  1784;  descending  from  Philip 
Oatch,  Eeuben  Ellis,  and  James  Foster,  instead  of  from  John 
Wesley  through  Thomas  Coke,  Kichard  Whatcoat,  and  Thomas 
Vasey,  and  thence  through  Francis  Asbury,  who  ordained 
William  McKendree,  who  ordained  Joshua  Soule,  who  ordained 
Robert  Paine,  to  living  men  now  exercising  the  episcopal  ofiice, 
this  writer,  for  one,  would  have  had  no  interest  in  disputing 
their  validity,  as  he  unhesitatingly  recognizes  the  validity  of 
the  orders  of  every  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  Church 
in  the  world.  Should  a  New  Testament  drop  down  out  of  the 
skies  on  an  island  never  visited  by  civilized  or  Christian  men, 
and  lead  to  the  conversion  of  its  inhabitants,  who  should  forth- 
with constitute  a  ministry  and  proceed  to  administer  the  sac- 
raments of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  a  true  Church  of 
Christ  would  be  organized  as  good  as  the  Church  of  Eome  or 
of  England — perhaps  better,  since  it  would  doubtless  escape 
the  corruptions  inherited  by  these  Churches  from  post- apostolic 
and  mediaeval  times,  and  approximate  more  closely  to  the 
purity  of  the  New  Testament  model.  Thus,  indeed,  did  Con- 
gregational Churches  in  New  England  originate.  "The  gov- 
ernor was  moved  to  set  apart  the  twentieth  of  July  [1629]  to 
be  a  solemn  day  of  humiliation,  for  the  choyce  of  a  pastor 


THE  PRESIDIXG  ELDERSHIP. 


29^ 


and  a  teacher  at  Salem."  After  prayer,  "the  persons  thought 
on,"  preferring  no  claim  based  on  their  ordination  in  England, 
acknowledged  a  twofold  calling:  the  inward,  of  God;  the  out- 
ward, from  a  congregation  of  believers.  The  vote  was  taken, 
and  Skelton  was  chosen  pastor.i  Such  was  the  origin  of  the 
use  of  the  ballot  on  this  continent,  and  such  was  the  origin  of 
as  valid  a  ministry  as  exists  anywhere  in  the  world.  So  little 
is  the  importance  which  we  attach  to  the  fabulous  history  or 
the  historical  fable  of  apostolic  succession. 

But  as  a  matter  of  history,  Methodist  orders  do  not  begin 
with  the  ordinations  of  the  Fluvanna  presbytery,  but  with  those 
of  the  scriptural  bishop,  John  Wesley.  Historically  it  can 
hardly  be  doubted  that  he  had  a  better,  clearer,  louder  provi- 
dential vocation  than  either  the  Fluvanna  brethren,  on  the  one 
hand,  or  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  the  Bishop  of 
London,  on  the  other.  The  actual  origin  is,  to  our  mind,  much 
more  desirable  and  respectable,  because  a  more  evident  inter- 
position of  the  hand  of  God,  than  either  Canterbury  or  Flu- 
vanna could  have  given.  As  for  the  ordination  of  poor  brother 
Seabury,  "Samuel,  Connecticut,"  as  he  was  fond  of  signing 
himself,  the  secret  nomination  of  eight  or  ten  Tory  rectors  was 
consummated  by  Scotch  non-juring  prelates,  who,  by  the  stern 
mandate  of  civil  law,  were  inhibited  from  the  performance  of 
any  such  act,  which,  by  the  sentence  of  deprivation  pronounced 
upon  its  perpetrators  on  account  of  their  lack  of  civil  qualifi- 
cations, was  in  English  law  ab  initio  null  and  void.  On  the 
very  day  this  farce  was  performing  in  Scotland,  Bishop  Coke 
was  administering  the  sacraments  to  hundreds  in  the  forests  of 
America,  and  the  arrangements  were  perfecting  for  the  calling 
of  the  Christmas  Conference  to  organize  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church. 

Evolutionists  are  fond  of  emphasizing  the  iindoubted  fact  of 
embryology,  that  the  development  of  the  embryo,  -from  the 
moment  of  the  fertilization  of  the  ovum  to  that  of  birth,  passes, 
in  the  case  of  a  higher  mammal,  as  man,  through  all  the  stages 
of  the  lower  orders,  so  that  each  of  these  might  be  represented 
as  a  case  of  arrested  development,  giving  rise  at  each  stage  to 
a  definite  lower  order  of  animal  life.  This  embryonic  devel- 
opment, the  evolutionist  insists,  is  an  epitome  in  individual 

'  Bancroft's  History  of  the  United  States,  Author's  Last  Revision,  I.  228. 


30 


TlIK  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


life  of  the  wider  development  of  all  animal  life  from  a  few 
primordial  germs.  However  this  may  be  (and  we  are  not 
now  concerned  in  passing  judgment  on  the  value  of  the 
suggestion),  certain  it  is  to  our  mind  that  episcopal  church 
government,  as  it  exists  in  Methodism,  is  an  epitome  of  the  ex- 
cellences of  the  congregational  and  presbyterial  systems,  with 
the  added  unity  and  vigor  and  compacted  energies  peculiar  to 
itself.  This  highest  form  of  Chxirch  life  embodies  full  recog- 
nition and  use  of  the  lower. 

Elsewhere^  we  have  given  in  full  the  ordination  parchment 
of  Thomas  Coke,  the  first  Methodist  bishop.  Here  we  insert 
the  ordination  parchment  of  Eichard  Whatcoat,  the  first  Meth- 
odist elder: 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley,  late  Fellow  of  Lin- 
coln College,  in  Oxford,  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  sendeth  greeting: 

Whereas  many  of  the  people  in  the  southern  provinces  of  North  Amer- 
ica, who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still  adhere  to  the  doctrines 
and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England,  are  greatly  distressed  for  want  of 
ministers,  to  administer  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
according  to  the  usages  of  the  said  Church :  and  whereas  there  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers: 

Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be  providentially 
called,  at  this  time,  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the  work  of  the  ministry 
in  America.  And,  therefore,  under  the  protection  of  Almighty  God,  and 
with  a  single  eye  to  his  glory,  I  have  this  day  set  apart  for  the  said  work, 
as  an  elder,  by  the  imposition  of  my  hands,  and  prayer  (being  assisted  by 
two  other  ordained  ministers),  Richard  Whatcoat,  a  man  whom  I  judge  to 
be  well  qualified  for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby  recommend  him  to 
all  whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  tit  person  to  feed  the  flock  of  Christ,  and  to 
administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
Church  of  England.  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  seal,  this  second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and  eighty-four.  John  Wesley. 

We  have  inserted  this  ordination  parchment  of  the  first 
Methodist  elder  for  several  reasons:  (1)  On  comparing  it  with 
Coke's,  we  find  the  two  identical,  except  as  one  was  the  cre- 
dentials of  a  "superintendent,"  and  the  other  of  an  "elder." 
Hence  if  Whatcoat's  paper  is  a  certificate  of  orders,  no  less  is 
Coke's;  and  we  have  one  more  indisputable  ground  for  reject- 
ing the  silly  conceit  that  Father  Wesley  was  simply  blessing 
his  son  Coke  when  he  sent  him  to  America  as  an  evangelist. 
The  identity  and  dignity  of  these  two  parchments  demonstrate 
IConstitutional  History,  p.  174. 


THE  PnESIDING  ELDERSHIP. 


31 


great  method  in  Wesley  s  raadness.  (2)  The  references  to  the 
doctrine,  discipline,  and  usages  of  the  Church  of  England, 
contained  in  Coke's  "letters  of  episcopal  orders"  (Methodist 
Discipline,  1789,  Section  iv.),  are  supplemented  by  one  more 
in  the  parchment  oi  Whatcoat,  who  is  "to  administer  baptism 
Hnd  the  Lord's  supper,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  Church 
of  England."  Coke  was  qualified  to  administer  the  sacraments 
before  his  ordination  by  Wesk-y  and  he  was  therefore  author- 
ized "to  preside  over  the  flock  of  Christ."  Thus  Whatcoat's 
credentials  alford  one  more  evidence  that  the  American  Metho- 
dist Church  was  to  be  an  Episcopal  Church,  modeled  closely 
in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  administration  of  sacraments  after 
the  Church  of  England,  and  designed  to  be  the  successor  of 
the  Anglican  communion,  then  defunct  in  America  as  to  epis- 
copal regimen.  (3)  It  will  be  noticed  that  in  Coke's  creden- 
tials Mr.  "Wesley  speaks  of  "being  assisted  by  other  ordained 
ministers,"  while  in  Whatcoat's  he  specifies  the  number,  "  be- 
ing assisted  by  tico  other  ordained  ministers."  These  two,  ac- 
cording to  Whatcoat's  own  explicit  testimony,  were  undoubt- 
edly Coke  himself  and  the  Eev.  James  Creighton.  The  direct 
evidence  usually  cited  indicates  the  presence  of  five  men  at 
these  original  ordinations — -Wesley,  Coke,  Creighton,  What- 
coat, and  Yasey.  It  is  an  interesting  and  difficult  historical 
inquiry  whether  any  other  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England 
besides  Mr.  Creighton  assisted  Wesley  at  the  episcopal  ordina- 
tion of  Dr.  Coke.  In  an  article  in  our  Keyiew  for  July,  1861, 
reviewing  the  second  volume  of  Smith's  History  of  Wesleyan 
Methodism,  Doctor  (afterwards  Bishop)  Wightman  says  (p. 
827):  "In  connection  with  Mr.  Creighton,  another  minister  of 
the  establishment,  he  [the  Rev.  Peard  Dickinson]  was  present 
and  took  part  with  Wesley  in  the  ordination  of  Dr.  Coke  as 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America."  Un- 
fortunately Bishop  Wightman  does  not  mention  any  source 
whence  he  derived  his  authority  for  this  statement.  Stevens, 
however,  says  (History  of  Methodism,  II.  316):  "Both  these 
clergymen  [Creighton  and  Dickinson]  cooperated  heartily  in 
Wesley's  plans,  and  were  his  assistant  presbyters  in  his  ordi- 
nations." But  this  remark  occurs  in  connection  with  Stevens's 
account  of  the  Conference  at  which  Mather,  Eankin,  and  Moore 
were  ordained  (these  men  were  undoubtedly  ordained  by  Wes- 


32 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


ley,  Creighton,  and  Dickinson),  and  it  is  consequently  left 
somewhat  in  doubt  whether  Stevens  means  to  include  the  first 
ordinations  in  1784,  in  his  two  accounts  of  which  he  says  noth- 
ing of  Dickinson.  The  notice  of  Dickinson  in  McClintock 
and  Strong's  Cyclopaedia  (II.  786),  declares  that  his  ordination 
in  the  Church  of  England  took  place  in  1783:  if  this  ordina- 
tion was  to  "  priest's  orders,"  he  was  competent  to  assist  Wes- 
ley at  Bristol  in  1784  The  sum  of  this  evidence  is  not  con- 
clusive: several  other  trails  closely  followed  have  yielded  no 
decisive  result,  and  we  are  at  present  obliged  to  leave  the  in- 
quiry to  be  further  prosecuted.  After  his  graduation  at  Ox- 
ford, Dickinson  became  curate  to  Perronet  at  Shoreham,  and 
so  continued  until  the  latter's  death.  In  1786  he  became  fully 
identified  with  the  Methodists,  and  was  appointed  to  the  new 
City  Koad  Chapel,  London.    He  died  in  1802.  ^ 

The  Christmas  Conference  was  called,  not  as  an  organ  of 
government  in  the  new  Church,  but  to  organize  or  create  that 
Church  (as  yet  nonexistent),  in  accordance  with  the  plans  of 
Mr.  Wesley  communicated  through  Dr.  Coke.  Of  course  as 
an  organizing  Conference,  determining  by  majority  vote  the 
fate  of  the  measures  submitted  to  it,  the  Christmas  Conference, 
during  the  term  of  its  sittings,  necessarily  exercised  the  utmost 
reach  of  authority,  beyond  which  there  is  none  conceivable; 
but  neither  the  plan  of  Mr.  Wesley  nor  any  act  of  the  body 
gave  to  it  vitality  after  its  adjournment;  incorporated  such  a 
general  or  permanent  governing  body  in  the  constitution  of 
the  new  Church;  or  projected  its  legislative  or  electoral  powers 
one  minute  beyond  the  time  of  its  own  final  dissolution.  On 
the  contrary,  though  the  Christmas  Conference  elected  super- 
intendents, elders,  and  deacons,  it  confided  the  future  elections 
of  such  officers  to  the  Annual  Conferences;  though  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  enacted  laws  and  issued  a  Discipline,  it  left 
the  Annual  Conferences  in  possession  of  the  powers  which  had 
been  used  after  a  fashion  for  many  years  before,  and  which  for 
many  years  afterwards  were  exercised  by  these  bodies  in  the 
enactment  of  new  laws,  in  the  abrogation  or  amendment  of  old 
ones  enacted  by  the  Christmas  Conference,  in  the  rejection  of 
nominees  for  the  episcopacy,  and  in  the  revision  of  the  Disci- 

1  Smith's  History  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  I.  574,  575.  Smith  spells  the 
name  Dickenson;  all  the  other  authors  quoted,  as  in  the  text  above. 


THE  PRESIDIXG  ELDERSHIP. 


33 


pline  and  the  issue  of  many  new  editions  of  that  supreme  law 
book.  The  only  limitation  upon  the  supreme  legislative  and 
electoral  authority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  incorporated  by 
the  Christmas  Conference  in  the  first  Discipline  of  the  Church 
was  the  resolution  of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  the 
Americans  acknowledged  themselves  "  ready  in  matters  belong- 
ing to  Church  government  to  obey  his  commands."  No  won- 
der .Asbury  was  "mute  and  modest"  when  this  resolution 
passed,  for  in  form  it  lodged  sovereignty  in  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
thus  came  near  defeating  in  fact,  his  object  in  calling  the 
Christmas  Conference,  whose  organization  of  the  Church,  with 
this  contradictory  exception,  left  the  attributes  of  sovereignty 
in  the  Annual  Conferences.  Mr.  Wesley's  nominal  supremacy 
or  sovereignty  continued  until  1787,  when  the  record  of  it  was 
expunged  from  the  law  book  of  the  Church,  and  the  Annual 
Conferences  exercised  full  sovereign  power  until  1792.  The 
Christmas  Conference  was  without  doubt  sovereign.  It  created 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — leaving  it  without  a  General 
Conference.  Later  the  Church,  through  its  existing  sovereign 
organs,  created  its  General  Conference. 

This  Christmas  Conference  elected,  and  Bishops  Coke  and 
Asbury,  assisted  by  Presbyters  Whatcoat  and  Vasey,  ordained, 
a  number  of  elders,  whose  duties  and  functions  we  must  now 
proceed  to  investigate.  The  office  of  presiding  elder  is  not 
recognized  or  defined  in  the  first  Discipline  of  the  Church, 
which  simply  assigns  the  duties  of  an  elder  "  to  administer  the 
sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  and  to  perform 
all  the  other  rites  prescribed  by  our  Liturgy."  In  the  appoint- 
ments of  1785,  however,  the  first  made  after  the  Christmas 
Conference,  and  recorded,  indeed,  in  the  same  Annual  Minutes 
which  officially  record  the  proceedings  of  that  body,  the  names 
of  John  Tunnell,  Henry  Willis,  Richard  Ivy,  Reuben  Ellis, 
Nelson  Reed,  Enoch  Matson,  James  O'Kelly,  Thomas  Foster, 
Ignatius  Pigman,  Richard  Whatcoat,  Caleb  Boyer,  William 
Gill,  Thomas  Vasey,  and  Thomas  Chew,  have  the  title  EhU'r 
affixed  to  them,  and  are  prefixed  to  groups  of  circuits  ranging 
from  two  to  six  in  number,  and  including  from  one  preacher, 
Woolman  Hickson,  in  John  Tunnell's  care,  to  nine  preachers 
in  Reuben  Ellis's.  Besides  these,  Beverly  Allen  is  recognized 
as  an  "■Elder,"  and  assigned  to  the  whole  of  "Georgia,"  with 
3 


34 


THE  MAKiyO  OF  METHODISM. 


no  preachers  under  him;  while  John  Haggerty,  at  New  York 
(probably  with  Ezekiel  Cooper,  on  Long  Island,  dependent  on 
him  for  the  ordinances),  Freeborn  Garrettson,  at  Shelburne, 
James  Cromwell,  at  Port  Roseway,  and  Jeremiah  Lambert 
and  John  Baxter,  at  Antigua,  are  similarly  recognized  as 
"Elders,"  with  no  preachers  in  their  charge.^  These  arrange- 
ments were  in  accordance  with  the  design  of  Mr.  Wesley,  who, 
in  the  beginning,  did  not  intend  that  all  the  preachers  should 
be  elders,  but  only  that  a  sufficient  number  should  be  ordained 
to  supply  the  people  with  the  sacraments.  In  1786,  the  second 
Discipline  of  the  Church  adds  to  the  duties  of  an  elder  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  first:  "To  exercise  within  his  own  district,  dur- 
ing the  absence  of  the  Superintendents,  all  the  powers  invested 
in  them  for  the  government  of  our  Church.  Provided  that  he 
never  act  contrary  to  an  express  order  of  the  Superintendents."  ^ 
So  far  as  we  know,  this  is  the  earliest  use  of  the  term  "district," 
as  applied  to  an  elder's  jurisdiction,  in  the  ofiicial  records  of 
the  Church.  From  that  day,  it  has  been  in  common,  not  to  say 
universal,  use.  This  agrees  exactly  with  Bishop  Soule's  manu- 
script account^  of  the  original  legal  relations  subsisting  be- 
tween the  bishops  and  the  elders,  and  which  continue  without 
change  to  this  day.  The  Eev.  Thomas  Ware,  who  was  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Christmas  Conference,  deposes  that  "after  our 
organization,  we  proceeded  to  elect  a  sufficient  number  of 
elders  to  visit  the  quarterly  meetings  and  administer  the  or- 
dinances." * 

Putting  together  the  evidence  derivable  from  the  first  and 
second  annual  Disciplines  of  the  Church,  from  Thomas  Ware 
and  from  Joshua  Soule,  we  are  authorized  to  conclude  that  the 
presiding  eldership,  though  not  at  first  called  by  this  name,  is 
virtually  coeval  with  the  Church  itself,  and  that  from  the  be- 
ginning the  duties  lodged  with  this  officer  were  (1)  the  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments;  (2)  the  official  visitation  of  the 
Quarterly  Conferences;  and  (3)  the  exercise  within  an  assigned 
district  of  all  the  powers  of  the  general  superintendents  for 
the  government  of  the  Church  during  their  absence,  extending 

1  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  pp.  80-83.  O'Kelly's  name  is  erroneously  entered 
"Kelly."  2 Discipline  of  1786,  p.  332.  » Printed  in  Constitutional  History, 
pp.  211-213.  ■•Meth.  Mag.  and  Quart.  Rev.,  July,  1832,  art.,  "Christmas 
Conference,"  by  Thos.  Ware. 


THE  PRESIDIXG  ELDERSHIP. 


35 


to  the  ordinary  enforcement  of  law  and  the  prompt  administra- 
tion of  discipline. 

The  first  occurrence  of  the  title  "  presiding  elder "  in  the 
official  action  of  the  Church  is  in  the  plan  for  the  Council 
adopted  by  the  Annual  Conferences  in  1789,  three  years  after 
the  official  term  "district"  had  made  its  appearance  in  the 
Discipline  of  1786.  The  first  provision  of  the  plan  for  the 
Council  was  as  follows: 

Our  bishops  and  presiding  elders  shall  be  the  members  of  this  Council; 
provided,  that  the  members  who  form  the  Council  be  never  fewer  than 
nine.  And  if  any  unavoidable  circumstance  prevent  the  attendance  of  a 
presiding  elder  at  the  Council,  he  shall  have  authority  to  send  another 
elder  out  of  his  own  district  to  represent  him;  but  the  elder  so  sent  by  the 
absenting  elder  shall  have  no  seat  in  the  Council  without  the  approbation 
of  the  bishop,  or  bishops,  and  presiding  elders  present.  And  if,  after  the 
above-mentioned  provisions  are  complied  with,  any  unavoidable  circum- 
etance  or  any  contingencies  reduce  the  number  to  less  than  nine,  the  bishop 
shall  immediately  summon  such  elders  as  do  not  preside,  to  complete  the 
number."  ^ 

Here  the  term  "presiding  elder,"  though  still  absent  from 
the  Discipline  and  the  Minutes,  occurs  no  less  than  three  times, 
showing  it  to  have  come  into  such  familiar  and  common  use  as 
to  be  universally  understood  without  explanation.  "District" 
is  also  reproduced  from  the  Discipline  as  the  usual  official 
term;  and  it  is  evident  that  even  at  this  early  date  some  elders 
were  not  assigned  to  districts,  but  were  put  in  charge  of  cir- 
cuits under  the  supervision  of  other  elders,  now  distinguished 
as  "presiding  elders."  But  in  1787  it  was  not  usual  for  the 
presiding  elder  to  have  charge  of  other  elders.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  office  was  evidently  very  rapid.  The  provisions 
of  the  first  and  second  Disciplines,  1785  and  1786,  have  already 
been  cited.  In  the  Discipline  of  1787,  which,  it  will  be  remem- 
bered, was  rearranged  by  Bishop  Asbury,  appeared  for  the  first 
time  a  section  "  On  the  Constituting  of  Elders  and  their  Duty." 
The  duties  are  defined  as  follows: 

1.  To  travel  through  his  appointed  District. 

2.  To  administer  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  to  perform  all 
Parts  of  Divine  Service. 

3.  In  the  Absence  of  a  Bishop,  to  take  charge  of  all  the  Deacons,  travel- 
ing and  local  Preachers,  and  Exhorters. 

4.  To  change,  receive,  or  suspend  Preachers. 


1  Jesse  Lee,  Short  History  oi  the  Methodists,  p.  149. 


36 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


I 


5.  To  direct  in  the  Transaction  of  all  the  spiritual  Business  of  his  Circuit. 

6.  To  take  care  that  every  Part  of  our  Discipline  be  enforced. 

7.  To  aid  in  the  public  Collections. 

8.  To  attend  his  Bishop  when  present,  and  give  him  when  absent,  all 
possible  Information  by  Letter,  of  the  State  of  his  District. 

N.  B.  No  Elder  that  ceases  to  travel  without  the  consent  of  the  Confer- 
ence, certified  under  the  Hand  of  a  Bishop,  shall  on  any  Account  exercise 
the  peculiar  Functions  of  his  Office  among  us.i 

The  Discipline  of  1787  was  published  after  the  session  of 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  the  last  of  that  year,  for  the  resolu- 
tion of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley,  finally  rescinded  by  that 
body,  is  omitted.  But  the  revised  Discipline  as  a  whole,  ar- 
ranged in  thirty-one  sections  "under  proper  heads,  and  meth- 
odized in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  manner"  by  Bishop 
Asbury,  assisted  by  John  Dickins,  was  not  submitted  to  the 
Conferences,  for  the  title  "bishop,"  which  occurs  for  the  first 
time  in  the  Discipline  of  this  year,  was  not  inserted  by  action 
of  the  Conferences,  but  was  approved  by  them  at  their  sessions 
in  1788.  It  is  highly  probable  that  Bishop  Asbury  took  the 
responsibility  of  expanding  the  simple  provisions  of  1786  con- 
cerning the  elders  into  the  somewhat  elaborate  section  of  1787. 
But  in  so  doing  it  is  also  probable  that  he  simply  made  formal 
record  in  the  Discipline  of  functions  and  duties  that  the  elders 
were  already  actually  exercising  by  appointment  of  the  bishops 
and  consent  of  the  Conferences.  The  section  of  1787  stood 
substantially  unchanged  until  the  meeting  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  1792.  Bishop  Asbury  and  the  Annual  Conferences 
"  found  that  this  order  of  men  was  so  necessary,"  say  Coke  and 
Asbury,  in  their  Notes  to  the  Discipline  of  1796,  "that  they 
agreed  to  enlarge  the  number,  and  give  them  the  name  by  which 
they  are  at  present  called  [the  name  was  doubtless  coined  by 
Bishop  Asbury;  the  Conferences  acquiesced,  though  it  does 
not  appear  in  the  Discipline  until  1792],  and  which  is  perfectly 
scriptural,  though  not  the  word  used  in  our  translation:  and 
this  proceeding  afterwards  received  the  approbation  of  Mr. 

^  Discipline  of  1787,  Sec.  V.,  p.  8.  The  capitalization  of  the  original  has 
been  retained.  In  the  Constitutional  History,  p.  215,  the  date  1789  assigned 
for  the  introduction  of  this  section  is  an  error  taken  from  Emory's  History 
of  the  Discipline,  ed.  1844,  p.  125.  Emory  was  unable  to  obtain  editions  of 
the  Discipline  either  for  1787  or  1788.  This  writer  is  now  in  possession  of 
original  editions  of  1786,  1788, 1789,  1790, 1791,  and  1792,  and  has  the  use  of 
the  original  editions  of  1784-5  (the  first),  and  1787,  the  rarest  of  all. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP. 


37 


Wesley  [whose  supremacy  continued  formally  until  1787].  In 
1792  the  General  Conference,  equally  conscious  of  the  necessity 
of  having  such  an  office  among  us,  not  only  confirmed  every- 
thing that  Bishop  Asbury  and  the  District  [Annual]  Confer- 
ences had  done,  but  also  drew  up  or  agreed  to  the  present  sec- 
tion for  the  explanation  of  the  nature  and  duties  of  the  office." 

The  chronology  of  the  name  is  as  follows.  (1)  It  occurs  first 
in  the  plan  of  the  Council  as  given  by  Jesse  Lee  in  1789;  (2) 
it  occurs  nowhere  in  the  first  edition  of  the  General  Minutes, 
published  by  John  Dickius,  in  1795,  embracing  the  official  rec- 
ords of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  from  1773  to  1794,  includ- 
ing the  Christmas  Conference;  (3)  in  the  reprint  of  1813,  the 
title  is  used  in  the  appointments  of  1789,  probably  to  conform 
the  Minutes  to  the  Plan  of  the  Council — it  then  disappears 
from  the  Minutes  until  1797,  after  which  it  continues  in  gen- 
eral use;  (4)  it  first  appears  in  the  Discipline  in  1792;  and 
(5)  it  occurs  in  the  first  extant  journal  of  a  General  Confer- 
ence, namely,  that  of  1796. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 


The  Presiding  Eldership  (Continued). 

As  we  have  seen  in  part,  the  first  attempt  to  establish  a  gen- 
eral government  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  by- 
means  of  the  creation  of  a  "  Council,"  composed  of  the  bishops 
and  presiding  elders,  or  of  other  elders  substituting  the  absent 
chiefs  of  districts.  This  Asburyan  scheme  was  adopted  by  the 
Annual  Conferences  as  sovereign  bodies  in  1789.  At  its  second 
and  last  session,  December  1,  1790 — though  another  session 
was  appointed  for  December  1,  1792 — this  Council  considered 
itself  invested  (1)  with  full  power  to  act  decisively  in  all  tem- 
poral matters,  and  (2)  to  recommend  to  the  several  Confer- 
ences any  new  canons,  or  alterations  to  be  made  in  old  ones. 
But  these  matters  will  be  somewhat  more  fully  considered 
when,  in  this  series  of  papers,  we  reach  the  question  of  the 
genesis  and  establishment  of  the  General  Conference. 

At  the  last  session  of  the  Council,  James  O'Kelly's  district 
was  not  represented.  A  member  of  the  first  Council,  and  ap- 
parently its  ardent  supporter,  he  almost  immediately  became 
its  most  vigorous  opponent.  In  January,  1790,  the  month 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  first  session  of  the  Council, 
O'Kelly  took  it  upon  himself  to  address  to  Asbury  a  letter  of  re- 
monstrance and  complaint,  almost  inhibitory  in  its  demands, 
and  not  devoid  of  clearly  implied  threats.  Asbury  says  he 
spoke  with  the  authority  of  a  pope.  Accordingly,  in  Novem- 
ber following,  when  preparations  were  making  throughout  the 
Church  for  the  second  session  of  the  Council,  O'Kelly  called 
a  meeting  of  the  preachers  of  his  district,  at  which  twenty-two, 
including  William  McKendree,  were  present.  At  this  confer- 
ence it  was  speedily  agreed  "to  send  no  member  to  Council," 
thus  illustrating  Bishop  Asbury's  assertion  of  the  superior  and 
controlling  influence  of  the  presiding  elders  over  the  preachers 
of  their  districts.  During  1790  O'Kelly  also  entered  into  a  cor- 
(38) 


THE  PBESIDIKCr  ELDERSHIP. 


39 


respondence  witli  Dr.  Coke,  in  London,  and  succeeded  in  com- 
mitting him  against  the  Council  and  in  favor  of  the  Geiieral  Con- 
ference, so  that  when  the  two  bishops  met  in  February,  1791, 
there  was  a  little  "heat,"  which  disappeared  when  Asbury 
promptly  "acceded  to  a  General  Conference  for  the  sake  of 
peace."  ^  Asbury  says  in  a  letter  to  Morrell  that  O'Kelly  also 
wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  Dr.  Coke  declares  that  he  "prevailed 
on  James  O'Kelly  and  the  thirty-six  traveling  preachers  who 
had  withdrawn  with  him  from  all  connections  with  Bishop  As- 
bury to  submit  to  the  decision  of  a  General  Conference,"  and 
that  when  the  Conference  met  in  1792,  "he  [Coke J  proposed 
and  obtained  that  great  blessing  to  the  American  Connection — 
a  permanency  for  General  Conferences,  which  were  to  be  held 
at  stated  times."  ^  Thus  this  restless  agitator,  addressing  him- 
self to  both  of  the  bishops  and  to  Mr.  V^esley,  then  in  the  last 
year  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage,  and  organizing  the  jDreachers  of 
his  district  in  independence  of  Mr.  Asbury  and  of  the  Connec- 
tion, ably  seconded  also,  as  to  the  end  sought,  by  Jesse  Lee,  who 
from  the  beginning  had  been  a  sturdy  and  outspoken  opponent 
of  the  Council,  so  fomented  the  general  dissatisfaction  that  the 
third  session,  though  appointed,  was  never  held,  the  General 
Conference  anticipating  and  superseding  it.  "Bishop  Asbury 
proposed  the  Council,"  says  Bangs,  "which  had  but  an  ephem- 
eral existence,  and  did  not  answer  the  design  of  its  institution, 
to  which  neither  Dr.  Coke  nor  O'Kelly  was  agreed,  the  former 
submitting  to  it  from  deference  to  Bishop  Asbury,  proposing 
in  the  meantime  a  General  Conference  as  a  substitute."  ^ 

O'Kelly's  great  contention  of  an  appeal  from  the  bishop 
to  the  Conference  on  the  question  of  the  appointment  of  the 
preachers  was  fully  debated  and  decisively  rejected  at  the  first 
session  of  the  General  Conference,  Back  of  this  lay  his  per- 
sonal grievance  with  regard  to  his  permanent  occupancy  of  the 
South  Virginia  District.  Asbury  declares  that  he  stipulated 
with  him  through  Dr.  Coke  to  allow  him  to  remain  there  until 
the  decision  of  the  proposed  General  Conference  could  be  had. 
An  inspection  of  the  appointments  from  1784  to  1792  will  re- 
veal the  fact  that  men  like  Whatcoat,  Willis,  Ivy,  Ellis,  Eeed, 
and  O'Kelly  had  almost  continuously  presided  over  districts 

lAsbury's  Journal,  II.  95.  ^  Letter  to  the  General  Conference  of  1808, 
Bangs's  History  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  II.  207.   ^lUd.,  II.  224. 


40 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODTSM. 


since  the  Christmas  Conference,  and,  for  the  most  part,  over 
the  same  districts,  or  in  the  same  general  region.  "Mr.  O'Kel- 
ly,"  says  Asbury,  "being  disappointed  in  not  getting  an  ap- 
peal from  any  station  made  by  me,  withdrew  from  the  Connec- 
tion and  went  off.  For  himself,  the  Conference  well  knew  he 
could  not  complain  of  the  regulation;  he  had  been  located  to 
the  south  district  of  Virginia  for  about  ten  succeeding  years; 
and  upon  his  plan,  might  have  located  himself  and  any  preach- 
er, or  set  of  preachers,  to  the  district,  whether  the  people 
wished  to  have  them  or  not."  ^  As  it  had  been  only  eight 
years  since  the  Christmas  Conference  and  the  first  ordination 
of  elders,  when  O'Kelly  was  ordained,  this  can  only  mean  that 
O'Keliy  had  done  circuit  work  in  that  region  for  two  years  be- 
fore the  Christmas  Conference.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  min- 
utes (1795),  which  show  that  O'Kelly  was  stationed  in  Bruns- 
wick in  1783  and  in  Sussex  in  1784. 

The  question,  therefore,  of  the  appointment  and  term  of  the 
presiding  elders  came  prominently  before  this  first  General 
Conference.  Of  this  body  we  have  no  journal,  the  alterations, 
as  Lee  tells  us,  being  entered  at  their  proper  place  and  pub- 
lished in  the  next  edition  of  the  Form  of  Discipline.^  But 
this  Discipline  of  1792  and  Lee's  History  lie  before  us,  and 
afford  all  necessary  information.  Of  the  presiding  eldership 
Lee  says: 

The  fifth  section  had  respect  to  the  presiding  elders.  Such  an  order  of 
elders  had  never  been  regularly  established  before.  They  ba  1  been  ap" 
pointed  by  the  bishop  for  several  years;  but  it  was  a  doubt  in  the  mind  of 
the  preachers  whether  such  power  belonged  to  him.  The  General  Confer- 
ence now  determined  that  there  should  be  presiding  elders,  and  that  they 
should  be  chosen,  stationed,  and  changed  by  the  bishop.^ 

When  we  consider  the  section  "On  the  Constituting  of  Eld- 
ers and  their  Duty"  in  the  Discipline  of  1787,  cited  in  our  last 
chapter,  wliich  had  stood  without  change  in  those  of  1788,  1789, 
1790,  and  1791,  it  is  evident  that  this  language  of  Lee's  cannot 
mean  that  there  was  any  doubt  as  to  the  legality  of  existing 

1  Journal,  II.  147.  ^  It  is  probable  that  this  was  also  the  case  at  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  the  supposed  long-lost  minutes  of  this  body  never  having 
had  any  existence  as  a  distinct  record.  I  am  well  aware  of  the  danger  of 
the  many  universal  negative  judgments  which  I  have  been  compelled  to 
express  on  various  points,  and  stand  ready  to  reverse  any  of  them  on  proper 
evidence.   "  short  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  183. 


THE  PRESIDIXG  ELDERSHIP. 


41 


districts  and  tlie  authority  of  the  bishop  to  appoint  elders  to 
preside  over  them.  But  the  dignity  and  solemnity  of  the  ordi- 
nation of  the  elders  to  an  order  which,  unlike  the  diaconate, 
was  of  life  tenure;  the  examples  of  permanency  in  the  presi- 
dency of  certain  districts,  which,  as  in  O'Kelly's  case,  had  con- 
tinued in  some  instances  since  the  original  ordinations  at  the 
Christmas  Conference;  the  exclusive  governing  functions  to 
which  the  elders  had  been  assigned  in  the  constitution  of  the 
Council;  the  comparative  fewness  of  their  numbers,  and  the 
commanding  influence  which  their  age,  experience,  talents,  and 
permanency  speedily  enabled  many  of  them  to  acquire  in  their 
districts  and  throughout  the  Church,  had  begotten  a  doubt 
whether  the  presiding  eldership  was  not  a  lifetime  estate,  like 
the  episcopate,  and  whether  the  bishops  had  authority  to 

choose,  station,  and  change "  the  solemnly  ordained  occu- 
pants of  this  sub-episcopal  office. 

There  are  many  indications  that  the  organization  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  1792  was  seized  upon  as  a  favorable  time 
for  a  fresh  sifting  and  settling  of  the  general  economy  of  the 
Church.  Says  Asbury:  "  The  General  Conference  went  through 
the  Discipline,  Articles  of  Faith,  Forms  of  Baptism,  Matri- 
mony, and  the  Burial  of  the  Dead;  as  also  the  Offices  of  Ordi- 
nation. The  Conference  ended  in  peace  after  voting  another 
General  Conference  four  years  hence."*  In  the  address  pre- 
fixed to  the  Discipline  of  1792,  dated  Baltimore,  November  16, 
and  signed  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  the  bishops  say:  "We  think 
ourselves  obliged  frequently  to  view  and  review  the  whole  or- 
der of  our  Church,  always  aiming  at  perfection,  standing  on 
the  shoulders  of  those  who  have  lived  before  us,  and  taking  the 
advantage  of  our  former  selves."'  Since  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, the  "Form  of  Discipline,"  remarks  Lee,  "had  been 
changed  and  altered  in  so  many  particulars,  and  the  business 
of  the  Council  had  thrown  the  Connection  into  such  confusion, 
that  we  thought  proper  at  this  Conference  to  take  under  con- 
sideration the  greater  part  of  the  Form  of  Discipline,  and 
either  abolish,  establish,  or  change  the  rules."  Accordingly, 
in  1792  the  presiding  eldership  is  formally  recognized  in  the 
Discipline;  this  officer  is  placed,  like  other  preachers,  at  the 
disposal  of  the  bishop  as  to  his  appointment,  and  his  term  on 


•  Journal,  II.  147.     ^Discipline  of  1792,  p.  iv. 


42 


THE  MAKING  OF  MKTHODISM. 


a  given  district  is  limited  to  four  years.  The  General  Con- 
ference confirmed  all  that  Bishop  Asbury  and  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences had  done,  and  drew  up  a  section  in  which  the  bishop 
in  two  separate  questions  and  answers  is  expressly  empowered, 
first  to  choose,  and  then  to  station  and  change  the  presiding 
elders.  Lee  and  the  Discipline  of  1792  are  identical  in  their 
phraseology  about  "choosing,  stationing,  and  changing."  This 
section  stood  unaltered  from  1792  until  1804,  as  follows: 

Quest.  1.  By  whom  are  the  presiding  elders  to  be  chosen? 
Answ.  By  the  bishop. 

Quest.  2.  What  are  the  duties  of  the  presiding  elder? 
Answ.  1.  To  travel  through  his  appointed  district. 

2.  In  the  absence  of  a  bishop  to  take  charge  of  all  the  elders,  deacons, 
traveling  and  local  preachers,  and  exhorters  in  his  district. 

3.  To  change,  receive,  or  suspend  preachers  in  his  district  during  the  in- 
tervals of  the  Conferences  and  in  the  absence  of  the  bishop. 

4.  In  the  absence  of  a  bishop,  to  preside  in  the  Conference  of  his  district. 

5.  To  be  present,  as  far  as  practicable,  at  all  the  quarterly  meetings;  and 
to  call  together  at  each  quarterly  meeting  all  the  traveling  and  local  preach- 
ers, exhorters,  stewards,  and  leaders  of  the  circuit,  to  hear  complaints,  and 
to  receive  appeals. 

6.  To  oversee  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  societies  in  his 
district. 

7.  To  take  care  that  every  part  of  our  Discipline  be  enforced  in  his  dis- 
trict. 

8.  To  attend  the  bishop  when  present  in  his  district;  and  to  give  him 
when  absent  all  necessary  information,  by  letter,  of  the  state  of  his  district. 

Quest.  3.  By  whom  are  the  presiding  elders  to  be  stationed  and  changed? 
Answ.  By  the  bishop. 

Quest.  4.  How  long  may  the  bishop  allow  an  elder  to  preside  in  the  same 
district? 

Answ.  For  any  term  not  exceeding  four  years  successively. 

In  1804  to  the  third  item  of  the  presiding  elder's  duties  were 
added  the  words,  "as  the  Discipline  directs;"  sundry  other 
changes  were  also  made  at  the  same  time,  which  do  not  afi"ect 
the  essential  principles  and  rules  of  the  administration  intrust- 
ed to  this  officer,  or  his  relations  to  the  bishops  and  to  the  An- 
nual Conferences,  all  of  which  have  remained  as  settled  in 
1792.  In  1840  the  presiding  elder  was  given  the  power  to  "  de- 
cide all  questions  of  law  in  a  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference, 
subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  president  of  the  next  Annual  Con- 
ference; but  in  all  cases  the  application  of  law  shall  be  with  the 
Conference." 


THE  rBESIDIXO  ELDERSHIP. 


43 


The  controversies  Avliicli  agitated  the  Church  throughout  the 
opening  quarter  of  this  century  concerning  the  election  of  pre- 
siding elders  by  the  Annual  Conferences  and  their  official  func- 
tions and  responsibility  in  the  appointment  of  the  preachers 
cannot  be  entered  upon  here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  none  of 
these  agitations  resulted  in  any  modification  of  the  underlying 
principles  finally  settled  in  1792,  and  guaranteed  by  the  consti- 
tution of  1808  as  an  integral  part  of  our  plan  of  itinerant  general 
superinteudeucy.  The  formative  period  of  the  presiding  elder- 
ship was  from  1784  to  1792,  since  which  time,  notwithstanding 
the  persistent  efforts  of  some  of  the  ablest  leaders  the  Church 
has  had,  especially  in  the  Northern  Conferences,  its  material 
features  have  remained  unchanged.  It  is  difficult  for  us  to 
realize  tliat  on  this  question  the  Northern  opponents  of  Mc- 
Kendree  and  Soule,  authors  and  defenders  of  the  constitution, 
came  near  disrupting  the  Church  in  1820-24,  and  by  their  atti- 
tude kept  Soule  out  of  the  episcopacy  for  a  quadrennium.  This 
story  we  have  elsewhere  told  at  length.  The  Annual  Confer- 
ences have  never  had  a  voice  in  the  selection  of  presiding  eld- 
ers. Nobody  but  the  bishop  has  ever  been  responsible  for  the 
appointments  of  the  preachers.  The  "cabinet,"  and  the  func- 
tions of  the  presiding  elder  in  the  cabinet,  are  still  without  defi- 
nition or  recognition  in  the  Discipline.  Bishop  Asbury  always 
made  the  appointments  without  the  aid  of  a  cabinet.  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree  is  the  father  of  the  institution:  since  his  day  it  has  rest- 
ed securely  on  the  basis  of  common  consent  and  general  usage. 
The  regulations  of  1792  have  worked  well  for  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years.  They  are  protected  in  essentials  by  the  constitu- 
tion. The  office  has  been  under  discussion  from  its  creation  to 
this  day.  That  it  is  capable  of  improvement  in  various  details 
— by  enlargement  of  the  districts  and  a  more  accurate  align- 
ment of  District  Conferences  with  the  bodies  above  and  below 
them,  as  some  of  us  think — is  no  doubt  true;  that  the  Church 
will  modify  it  in  any  essential  feature  is  not  likely  in  our  day. 


THE  ITINERANCY. 


CHAPTEE  V. 
The  Itinerancy. 

The  first  public  expounders  in  America  of  the  gospel  accord- 
ing to  Methodism — Kobert  Strawbridge,  Philip  Embury,  and 
Thomas  Webb — were  all  local  preachers,  a  fact  not  without  its 
bearing  on  present-day  discussions.  The  itinerancy  came  to 
these  western  shores  in  the  persons  of  Richard  Boardman  and 
Joseph  Pilmoor  in  1769;  of  Francis  Asbury  and  Eichard  Wright 
in  1771;  and  of  Thomas  Eankin  and  George  Shadford  in  1773, 
when  the  first  Conference,  composed  of  ten  members,  met  in  the 
city  of  Philadelphia. 

Between  IIU,  the  date  of  the  first  British,  and  1773,  the  date 
of  the  first  American,  Conference,  the  itinerancy  had  been  de- 
veloped and  fixed  as  to  many  essential  features  in  England. 
Unlike  the  episcopacy  and  the  presiding  eldership,  the  itiner- 
ancy is  not  peculiar  to  American  Methodism.  Many  important 
changes,  moreover,  were  made  by  the  British  Conference  after 
the  last-mentioned  date.  For  a  comprehensive  historical  expo- 
sition of  the  advantageous  practical  features  and  the  broad 
legal  principles  exemplified  in  Methodist  itinerancy,  it  will  be 
necessary,  therefore,  in  two  distinct  though  closely  related  pa- 
pers, to  investigate, 

I.  The  Eise  and  Growth  of  Itinerancy  in  England,  and 

II.  The  Modifications  of  Itinerancy  in  America. 

At  that  first  London  Conference  of  1744  the  question  was 
asked,  "T7hat  may  we  reasonably  believe  to  have  been  God's 
design  in  raising  up  the  preachers  called  Methodists?"  and  the 
Minutes  record  the  answer,  To  reform  the  nation — more  par- 
ticularly the  Church;  to  spread  scriptural  holiness  over  the 
land"  ;  or,  according  to  the  Large  Minutes,  "As  messengers  sent 
by  the  Lord,  out  of  the  common  way,  to  provoke  the  regular  cler- 
gy to  jealousy,  and  to  supply  their  lack  of  service  toward  those 

(47) 


48 


THE  MAKING  OF  METIIODIf^M. 


who  are  perishing  for  want  of  knowledge;  and,  above  all,  to  re- 
form the  nation  by  spreading  scriptural  holiness  over  the  land." 

The  Conference  of  1820  reaffirmed  and  expanded  this  original 
conception  of  the  office  and  duty  of  Methodist  preachers : 

Let  us  ourselves  remember,  and  endeavor  to  impress  on  our  people,  that 
we,  as  a  body,  do  not  exist  for  the  purposes  of  party ;  and  that  we  are  spe- 
cially bound  by  the  example  of  our  founder,  by  the  original  principle  on 
which  our  societies  are  formed,  and  by  our  constant  professions  before  the 
world,  to  avoid  a  narrow,  bigoted,  and  sectarian  spirit,  to  abstain  from  need- 
less and  unprofitable  disputes  on  minor  subjects  of  theological  controversy — 
and,  so  far  as  we  innocently  can,  "  to  please  all  men  for  their  good  unto  edi- 
fication." Let  us,  therefore,  maintain  toward  all  denominations  of  Chris- 
tiana who  "  hold  the  Head,"  the  kind  and  catholic  spirit  of  primitive  Meth- 
odism; and,  according  to  the  noble  maxim  of  our  fathers  in  the  gospel,  "  be 
the  friends  of  all,  the  enemies  of  none."  * 

It  is  in  full  accord  with  these  catholic  principles  that  we  find 
in  the  first  Discipline  of  American  Methodism,  as  enacted  by 
the  Christmas  Conference,  this  question  and  answer: 

Q.  47.  Shall  persons  who  continue  to  attend  divine  service  and  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  other  Churches  have  liberty  at  the  same  time 
to  be  members  of  our  Society? 

A.  They  shall  have  full  liberty,  if  they  comply  with  our  Rules.f 

The  word  full  is  italicized  in  the  original.  When  we  consider 
all  the  conditions  prior  to  1784,  as  they  obtained  in  Mr.  Jarratt's 
parish  and  elsewhere,  it  is  probable  that  a  considerable  propor- 
tion of  the  first  Methodists  were  sheltered  and  protected  by 
Question  47:  it  is  at  least  doubtful — though  the  inquiry  would 
be  more  curious  than  profitable — whether  members  of  other 
communions  are  not  to-day  entitled  to  recognition  among  the 
Methodists  should  they  seek  it. 

In  the  beginning  the  usual  method  of  conferring  the  ministe- 
rial character  was  for  the  assistant  to  recommend  to  Mr.  Wes- 
ley such  young  men  as  seemed  suited  to  the  work  of  the  itiner- 
ancy, with  or  without  consultation  with  the  quarterly  meeting, 
asd  sometimes  without  the  knowledge  of  the  person  concerned. 
Mr.  Wesley  then  made  an  appointment,  of  which  the  young  ap- 
pointee might  know  nothing  until  the  Conference  was  over. 
Bishop  Asbury  sometimes  did  the  same  thing  in  America.  In 
the  superintendent  of  the  circuit  alone,  who  corresponds  to  the 
old  assistant,  there  is  now  vested  the  constitutional  right,  among 

1  Ent'lish  Minutes,  1820,  Vol.  V.,  pp.  148,  149.  ^  Discipline,  1785,  pp.  17, 
18  (original). 


THE  ITINERANCY. 


49 


our  English  brethren,  of  nominating  candidates  for  the  itiner- 
ancy to  the  quarterly  meetings  of  the  circuits;  so  that  if  he  de- 
clines to  nominate  a  local  preacher,  no  other  person  can  assume 
this  function.  The  superintendent,  however,  is  required  to 
counsel  with  his  junior  colleagues  in  the  circuit,  to  examine 
the  candidate  privately  on  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline,  to 
hear  him  preach,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  afford  the  members 
of  the  quarterly  meeting  an  opportunity  to  do  so.  The  power 
of  the  quarterly  meeting  is  limited  to  a  judgment  on  these  three 
points:  Has  he  grace?  has  he  gifts?  has  God  given  him  fruit 
of  his  labors?  If  a  majority  decide  against  the  candidate,  the 
case  is  dismissed  for  that  year;  if  a  majority  decide  for  him,  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  quarterly  meeting  terminates.  Its  vote  of  ap- 
proval is  taken  by  the  superintendent,  or  preacher  in  charge,  to 
the  ensuing  annual  district  meeting;  and  all  cases  approved  by 
the  district  committees  are  reported  to  the  Conference,  which 
makes  final  disposition  of  them. 

Section  1  of  Chapter  III.  of  our  present  Discipline  (1894), 
"Of  the  Trial  of  Those  who  Think  They  are  Moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  Preach,"  dates  back,  substantially  unchanged,  to  the 
Third  English  Conference,  held  in  1746;  so  that  for  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  these  have  been  the  tests  among  all  Meth- 
odists of  entrance  upon  the  duties  of  the  Christian  ministry. 

The  feature  of  examination  before  the  district  meeting  was 
introduced  in  1802.  Through  the  exertions  of  the  Kev.  Joseph 
Entwhistle,  a  plan  prepared  and  proposed  by  him  was  recom- 
mended by  the  York  and  Manchester  district  meetings  to  the 
Conference  of  that  year,  which  adopted  the  following  law: 

At  present  the  candidate  is  supposed  to  have  passed  the  quarterly  meet- 
ing, from  which  he  is  recommended  to  the  district  meeting.  In  addition  to 
this,  let  him,  if  possible,  attend  the  district  meeting,  and  be  examined  be- 
fore all  the  brethren  present  respecting  his  experience,  his  knowledge  of  di- 
vine things,  his  reading,  his  view  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  his  re- 
gard for  Methodism  in  general.  The  preacher  who  examines  him  shall  be 
chosen  by  the  ballot  of  the  district  committee.  After  the  examination,  the 
candidate  shall  withdraw,  and  the  committee  shall  deliberate  on  the  propri- 
ety or  impropriety  of  his  admission  on  trial,  and  determine  whether  he  shall 
be  recommended  to  the  ensuing  Conference  or  not.  If  it  be  not  convenient 
for  the  candidate  to  attend  the  district  meeting,  three  of  the  committee  shall 
be  chosen  by  ballot,  and  appointed  to  act  in  this  instance  for  the  district,  i 


4 


1  English  Minutes,  1802,  Vol.  II.,  p.  140. 


50 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


Thus,  when  the  General  Conference  of  1894  transferred  from 
Quarterly  to  District  Conferences  the  duty  of  recommending 
candidates  for  admission  on  trial  to  the  Annual  Couferences,  it 
but  followed  substantially  an  English  precedent  which  dates 
back  to  1802;  though  we  do  not  remember  that  either  the  com- 
mittee having  the  measure  in  charge  or  any  debater  on  the  floor 
of  the  Conference  urged  this  fact  in  favor  of  the  proposed  law, 
or  in  any  way  called  attention  to  it.  The  iDrovision  of  a  com- 
mittee of  examination  for  such  candidates,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  presiding  elder,  obviously  agrees  in  principle  also  with  the 
English  usage. 

William  Pierce,  in  his  "  Ecclesiastical  Principles  and  Polity 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists"  (third  edition,  revised  by  Fred- 
erick J.  Jobson,  D.D.),  gives  the  following  as  the  substance  of 
the  usual  examination  conducted  by  the  chairman  of  a  district 
for  candidates  for  admission  on  trial  into  the  Conference.  It 
is  of  suflScient  importance  to  be  transcribed  entire: 

Do  you  believe  that  the  Scriptures  reveal  a  Trinity  in  unity  in  the  eternal 
Godhea<i? 

How  do  you  define  this  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith? 

By  what  line  of  argument  do  you  prove  that  this  mysterious  truth  is 
taught  in  the  Scriptures? 

Do  you  believe  that  there  exists  a  relation  between  the  persons  in  the 
Trinity?  and  what  is  that  relation? 

How  do  you  further  prove  the  essential  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God? 

How  do  you  prove  the  eternal  Sonship  of  the  Second  Person  in  the  Trinity? 

How  do  you  prove  the  distinct  personality  and  proper  deity  of  the  Holy 
Ghost? 

What  do  you  understand  by  original  sin?  Are  the  whole  posterity  of 
Adam,  in  consequence  of  his  sin,  involved  in  guilt  and  subjects  of  inherent 
depravity? 

How  do  you  prove  this  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures? 
In  what  light  do  you  regard  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ? 
How  do  you  define  the  nature  of  that  atonement  or  propitiation  which 
Jesus  Christ  made? 

For  whom  did  he  offer  the  propitiatory  sacrifice? 

How  do  you  prove  from  the  Scriptures  that  our  Lord  has  made  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world? 

In  what  does  repentance  for  sin  consist? 

What  do  you  understand  by  the  present  justification  of  a  sinner  before 
God? 

Are  not  pardon,  justification,  and  adoption  substantially  the  same  act  of 
God,  viewed  under  the  different  relations  which  he  bears  to  man  as  a  Sov- 
ereign, a  Judge,  and  a  Father? 


THE  ITlXERAXCr. 


51 


By  what  Scriptures  do  you  sustain  tliis  view? 

What  is  the  nature  of  justifying  faith? 

What  are  the  immediate  results  of  justification? 

What  is  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit? 

Is  this  the  privilege  of  all  Christian  believers? 

What  is  the  new  birth,  or  regeneration? 

Although,  as  we  believe,  justification,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  and  regen- 
eration are  coexistent — that  is,  they  are  bestowed  upon  us  in  the  same  mo- 
ment of  time — is  there  not,  in  the  order  of  thinking,  a  succession  of  one  to  the 
other?  and  between  the  two  latter  is  there  not  a  relation  resembling  that  of 
cause  and  effect? 

In  what  respects  does  regeneration  differ  from  justification? 

How  does  it  differ  from  sanctification? 

What  is  entire  sanctification? 

Do  you  believe  that  this  state  of  "  perfect  love  "  is  attainable  in  the  pres- 
ent life  by  all  believers? 

How  do  you  prove  it  to  be  so  attainable? 

Do  you  believe  that  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  is  conditional? 

How  do  you  prove  that  the  saints  may  finally  fall  from  a  state  of  grace? 

What  do  you  believe  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  dead? 

Will  the  same  body,  in  the  popular  sense  of  that  term,  be  raised  again? 

Do  you  believe  that  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  and  punishment  of 
the  wicked,  in  a  future  state,  will  be  strictly  and  literally  eternal? 

Have  you  read  the  Large  Minutes? 

Do  you  approve  of  the  Methodist  discipline? 

Will  you  observe  it  yourself  and  enforce  it  upon  others? 

Do  you  believe  the  Christian  Sabbath  to  be  a  divine  institution  of  perpet- 
ual and  universal  obligation  in  the  Christian  Church? 

What  are  the  sacraments  which  our  Lord  has  ordained  in  his  Church? 

Are  you  under  any  matrimonial  engagement? 

Do  you  take  no  snuff,  tobacco,  or  drams? 

Are  you  free  from  debt? 

If  approved,  are  you  willing  to  be  employed  under  the  direction  of  the 
Conference  in  any  part  of  the  world,  or  do  you  restrict  your  offer?  i 

Candidates  accepted  by  the  ConfereDce  are  not  in  all  cases 
immediately  assigned  work.  Any  excess  above  the  number  de- 
manded for  the  circuits  may  be  sent  to  the  theological  institu- 
tion, or  placed  upon  the  president's  list  of  reserves.  The  Con- 
ference of  1785  fixed  the  term  for  which  preachers  should  re- 
main on  trial  at  four  years.  As  to  the  studies  of  these  clerical 
probationers,  several  wholesome  regulations  may  be  noted  :  As 
early  as  1798  it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  superintendent  of  the 

iPp.  263,  2&i.  Mr.  Pierce's  work  is  a  code  or  digest  prepared  from  the 
entire  series  of  English  INIinutes  under  classified  titles.  Indebtedness  is 
acknowledged  to  this  work,  but  all  its  references  have  been  verified. 


52 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


circuit  to  see  "that  the  preachers  on  trial  have  the  eight  vol- 
umes of  [Wesley's]  sermons  to  read."  It  was  further  enacted 
that  every  probationer,  "when  received  into  full  connection, 
shall  have  the  eight  volumes  given  to  him  as  a  present  from 
the  book  room."  In  1815  probationers  are  required  to  procure 
all  of  Mr.  Wesley's  works  while  on  trial,  but  are  allowed  to  pay 
for  them  in  convenient  installments.  In  1825  the  Conference 
recommends  the  "quarterly  meetings  of  these  circuits,  in  which 
such  preachers  are  stationed  while  on  trial,  to  allow  them  a  sum 
not  less  than  one  guinea  per  quarter  in  addition  to  their  usual 
salary,  to  be  laid  out  in  the  purchase  of  books."  In  1867  the 
Conference  directed  that  at  each  district  meeting,  annually  for 
the  four  years  of  probation,  "  three  English  books  shall  be  fixed 
upon  as  the  subjects  of  such  examination,  .  .  .  with  a  sub- 
ject in  Greek  or  Hebrew,  in  addition,  for  such  as  read  those  lan- 
guages." 

The  Deed  of  Declaration  empowers  the  Conference  to  admit 
into  full  connection  persons  approved  as  expounders  of  God's 
word.  As  early  as  1793  it  was  ordered  that  "  every  preacher, 
before  he  is  admitted  into  full  connection,  shall  draw  out  a 
sketch  of  his  life  and  experience."  The  Conference  of  1813  en- 
acted that,  after  the  usual  reception  into  full  connection  by  the 
president  of  the  Conference,  the  ex-president  should  deliver  to 
the  class  an  appropriate  charge.  A  fear  having  been  expressed 
that  some  of  the  younger  preachers  were  in  danger  of  departing 
from  the  leading  doctrines  of  Methodism,  it  was  required  in  1805 
that,  "  before  any  preacher  be  admitted  into  full  connection,  he 
shall  be  required  to  give  a  full  and  explicit  declaration  of  his 
faith  as  to  these  doctrines;"  and  in  1814  these  doctrines  were 
enumerated  and  defined  as  follows: 

The  following  are  chiefly  the  doctrines  to  which  his  unequivocal  assent  is 
demanded:  A  trinity  of  persons  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead;  the  total  de- 
pravity of  all  men  by  nature,  in  consequence  of  Adam's  fall ;  the  atonement 
made  by  Christ  for  the  sins  of  all  the  human  race;  justification  by  faith ;  the 
absolute  necessity  of  holiness,  both  in  heart  and  life ;  the  direct  witness  of  the 
Spirit;  and  the  proper  eternity  of  future  rewards  and  punishments.i 

It  is  well  known  that  in  1784  Mr.  Wesley  ordained  Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Whatcoat,  and  Mr.  Vasey,  and  subsequently  performed 
many  other  ordinations  for  Scotland  and  England.  Neverthe- 


1  En,i:lish  Minutes,  1814,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  41. 


TIIK  ITIXKIiANCT. 


53 


less,  more  than  half  a  century  elapsed  before  ordination  by  the 
imposition  of  hands  was  adopted  by  the  English  Conference. 
Not  until  the  year  1836  does  this  action  appear: 

The  Conference,  after  mature  deliberation,  resolves  that  the  preachers  who 
are  this  year  to  be  publicly  admitted  into  full  connection  shall  be  ordained 
by  imposition  of  hands;  that  this  shall  be  our  standing  rule  and  usage  in  fu- 
ture years,  and  that  any  rule  of  a  contrary  nature  which  may  be  in  existence 
shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  rescinded.i 

Since  1792  the  rule  had  stood:  "No  ordination  shall  take 
place  in  the  Methodist  connection  vrithout  the  consent  of  the 
Conference  first  obtained."  To  it  was  annexed  this  severe  pen- 
alty: "If  any  brother  shall  break  the  above-mentioned  rule  by 
ordaining  or  being  ordained  without  the  consent  of  the  Confer- 
ence being  obtained,  the  brother  so  breaking  the  rule  does  there- 
by exclude  himself.'^  In  the  Large  Minutes  appear  these  addi- 
tions to  the  rule:  "Nor  shall  gowns  or  bands  be  used  among  us, 
or  the  title  of  reverend  be  used  at  all."  In  1822  a  long  and  an- 
imated Conference  debate  on  the  subject  resulted  in  nothing.  It 
was  largely  through  the  influence  of  Jabez  Bunting,  as  Dr.  Mudge 
points  out  in  his  article  in  the  March  issue  of  The  Methodist 
Eeview,  1896,  that  decisive  action  was  taken  in  1836  as  indicated 
above.  In  1841  it  was  further  resolved  "  that  the  persons  by 
whom  the  Conference  shall  confer  ordination  to  our  ministry, 
by  imposition  of  hands,  be  the  president,  ex-president,  and 
secretary  of  the  Conference  for  the  time  being,  with  two  of  the 
senior  preachers  to  be  nominated  by  the  president."  It  has 
been  usual,  however,  to  invite  visiting  bishops  of  the  American 
Church  to  assist  in  these  ordinations.  Bishop  Soule  so  assisted 
in  1842,  placing  his  hands  upon  the  head  of  the  now  venerable 
and  venerated  Vv'illiam  Arthur,  as  did  Bishop  Galloway  at  his 
recent  visit  as  fraternal  messenger  from  our  Church.  The  or- 
dination service  used  conforms  closely  to  Mr.  "Wesley's  original 
abridgment  from  the  Church  of  England's  service,  and  is  en- 
titled, "  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Ordaining  of  Elders."  It 
does  not  diflPer  materially  from  our  own,  nor  do  the  questions 
asked  at  the  time  of  reception  into  full  connection  vary  in  any 
important  particular  from  our  own;  but  the  president  calls  upon 
as  many  of  the  class  as  the  time  will  allow  to  relate  briefly  the 
circumstances  of  their  conversion,  their  present  religious  expe- 


1  English  Minutes,  1836,  Vol.  VIII..  p.  85. 


54 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


rience,  their  conviction  of  a  divine  call  to  the  work  of  the  min- 
istry, and  their  purpose  of  full  devotion  to  God  and  his  work. 
Thus,  in  their  theological  examinations,  both  in  private  and  in 
public,  and  in  their  written  and  oral  narratives  of  experience, 
the  ministers  of  Methodism  in  England  are  thrown  back  upon 
their  living,  personal  knowledge  of  the  things  of  God  as  the  first 
qualification  for  their  life  work. 

The  Deed  of  Declaration  invests  the  Conference  with  an  un- 
qualified right  to  expel  from  the  connection  any  preacher  for 
any  cause  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Conference,  may  jus- 
tify such  a  penalty.  Nevertheless,  regulations  have  been  adopt- 
ed from  time  to  time  which  furnish  a  safe  check  upon  arbitrary 
expulsions.  In  1791  it  was  ordered  that  a  district  meeting  shall 
investigate  all  critical  cases;  in  1793  that  a  copy  of  the  charges 
should  be  sent  the  accused — the  tribunal  known  as  a  minor  dis- 
trict meeting  was  also  constituted,  and  its  function  to  suspend  a 
preacher  until  Conference  defined;  and  in  1795  the  somewhat 
elaborate  provisions  of  the  "  Plan  of  Pacification  "  went  into 
eflPect.  The  general  principles  involved  have  been  reasserted 
by  the  Conference  from  time  to  time,  and  many  details  of  ad- 
ministration have  been  added  as  emergencies  demanded  them. 

The  Deed  of  Declaration  also  enacts  that  "the  Conference 
shall  not,  nor  may,  appoint  any  person  for  more  than  three 
years  successively  to  any  chapel,"  the  clergymen  of  the  Church 
of  England  affiliating  with  the  Methodists  being  exempted  from 
the  operation  of  this  rule.  But  in  1791,  immediately  after  Mr. 
"Wesley's  death,  when  the  Deed  became  the  supreme  civil  char- 
ter of  the  connection,  the  Conference  ordained  that  "no  preach- 
er shall  be  stationed  for  any  circuit  above  two  years  succes- 
sively, unless  God  has  been  pleased  to  use  him  as  the  instru- 
ment of  a  remarkable  revival."  ^  In  1801  it  was  reaffirmed  that 
"  no  preacher  shall  be  permitted  to  remain  more  than  two  years 
successively."    But  in  1818  it  was  agreed: 

Whenever  it  is  proposed  to  station  any  preacher  in  the  same  circuit  for  a 
third  year  in  succession,  the  reasons  assigned  for  such  triennial  station  shall 
be  specially  stated  to  the  Conference  before  the  appointment  is  confirmed.2 

In  1801  it  was  ordered  that  no  preacher  should  be  returned 
to  a  circuit  where  he  had  served  for  even  a  single  year  until 
after  an  interval  of  seven  years.    In  1807  the  period  of  neces- 


lEn-Ii.-h  III  mutes,  1791,  Vol.  I.,  p.  254.    ''Ibid.,  181S,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  455. 


THE  ITISERANCY. 


55 


sary  absence  was  increased  to  eight  years;  but  in  1866  the  pe- 
riod for  Scotland  was  reduced  to  three  years. 

In  1830  the  Conference  ordained  that  where  there  were  two 
or  more  circuits  in  the  same  city,  no  preacher  should  be  stationed 
so  as  to  remain  for  above  six  years  in  succession  in  such  place. 
But  in  1872  the  May  district  committees  were  given  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  premises  during  the  presence  of  the  lay  members. 

The  provisions  of  the  British  Conference  concerning  super- 
numerary and  superannuated  preachers  are  not  unworthy  of  at- 
tention. In  1793  the  Conference  resolved  that  "  every  preach- 
er shall  be  considered  as  a  supernumerary  for  four  years  after 
he  has  desisted  from  traveling,  and  shall  afterwards  be  deemed 
superannuated."  In  1800  this  safeguard  was  erected:  "Let  no 
preacher  be  declared  superannuated,  or  stationed  as  a  super- 
numerary, without  the  recommendation  of  the  district  meeting 
to  which  he  belongs."    And  in  1806  this  statute  was  enacted: 

The  mode  of  supplying  the  wants  of  our  supernumerary  [and  superannu- 
ated?] preachers  shall  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Committee  of  Eleven, 
annually  appointed,  who  shall  determine  the  measure  of  relief  that  ought  to 
beaffonled  to  the  respective  claimants,  in  addition  to  their  annuity  from  the 
legal  fund;  and  shall  also  decide,  according  to  circumstances,  from  what 
source  the  additional  allowance  should  be  derived. 

As  early  as  1787  the  subject  of  permitting  strangers  to  preach 
in  the  chapels  engaged  the  attention  of  the  Conference,  and 
the  following  minute  was  adopted:  "  Let  no  person  that  is  not 
in  connection  with  us  preach  in  any  of  our  chapels  or  preach- 
ing houses  without  a  note  from  Mr.  "Wesley,  or  from  the  assist- 
ant of  the  circuit  from  whence  he  comes;  which  note  must  be  re- 
newed yearly."  This  action  of  1807  will  be  of  special  interest 
to  Americans: 

We,  therefore,  aeain  direct  that  no  stranger  from  America  or  elsewhere, 
be  suffered  to  preach  in  any  of  our  places,  unless  he  come  fully  accredited, 
if  an  itinerant  preacher,  by  having  his  name  entered  on  the  minutes  of  the 
Conference  of  which  he  is  a  member;  and  if  a  local  preacher,  by  a  recom- 
mendatory note  from  his  superintendent.! 

The  following  very  judicious  and  carefully  elaborated  reso- 
lution of  1847,  reaffirmed  in  1862,  is  so  pertinent  to  present-day 
conditions  among  us,  and  so  fertile  of  wise  suggestion,  that  we 
make  no  apology  for  transcribing  it  here: 

That  while  this  Conference  have  always  been,  and  are,  sincerely  and  cor- 


lEngli-h  Minutes,  L'-UT,  Vol.  1 1.,  p.  405. 


56 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


diall  y  thankful  for  those  genuine  and  scriptural  revivals  of  religion  with  which 
God  has  been  graciously  pleased  so  often  to  visit  many  of  our  circuits,  and  by 
which  he  has  from  time  to  time  refreshed  and  extended  his  heritage  among 
us,  they  feel  themselves  bound  in  conscience  and  in  fidelity  to  the  sacred 
trust  specially  committed  to  them,  as  the  recognized  ministers  and  pastors 
of  the  connection,  to  declare  in  the  strongest  terms  their  disapprobation  of 
the  occasion  which  certain  persons  have  taken  from  some  recent  movements, 
designed  for  the  promcrtion  of  religious  revivals,  to  encourage  a  spirit  of  un- 
holy dissension,  strife,  and  disorder.  The  Conference  fully  believe  that,  in 
very  many  instances,  this  has  occurred  without  any  evil  intention,  and  in- 
advertently, or  without  due  consideration;  but  it  is  their  deliberate  judg- 
ment that  the  tendency  and  operation  of  the  proceedings,  to  which  refer- 
ence is  here  made,  have  been  to  produce  serious  discords  of  opinion,  feeling, 
and  conduct  among  brethren,  and  to  create  that  internal  disunion  which  is 
truly  and  scripturally  condemned  as  divisive  and  schismatical.  In  connection 
witli  this  great  evil,  the  Conference  regret  to  perceive,  not  indeed  generally, 
but  yet  in  too  many  instances,  a  disposition  to  adopt  (perhaps  unawares) 
views  and  sentiments  which,  on  the  alleged  ground  of  concern  for  special 
and  extraordinary  revivals,  have  the  effect  of  alienating,  in  some  degree,  the 
affections  of  our  people  from  the  well-accredited,  long-tried,  and  officially  re- 
sponsible ministers  and  pastors  of  our  churches;  of  lessening  them  in  pub- 
lic estimation;  of  diminishing  their  legitimate  and  beneficial  influence;  of 
substituting  something  new  and  irregular  for  the  ordinary  ministry  and 
standing  institutions  of  the  gospel ;  and  of  leading  some  individuals,  most 
injuriously  to  themselves,  to  undervalue  the  authority  and  eventual  effi- 
ciency, under  the  promised  blessing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  the  stated  preach- 
ing of  the  word,  and  of  other  appointed  means  of  grace. 

Then  follow  a  republication  and  reenactment  of  the  minute 
of  1807  cited  above,  with  a  resolution  approving  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  ex-president  in  these  delicate  matters.  ^ 

Thus  have  we  passed  in  review  the  essential  regulations  of 
the  British  Conference  concerning  the  itinerancy  which  for  a 
century  and  a  half  has  certified  its  usefulness  among  Metho- 
dists as  their  chief  evangelizing  agency.  There  is  little  or  noth- 
ing in  this  long  history  that  suggests  the  necessity  or  expedi- 
ency of  the  abolition  of  the  "  time  limit,"  or  the  modification 
of  any  of  the  essential  principles  of  Methodist  itinerancy. 
Such  a  change  would  be  in  the  strictest  sense  an  experiment, 
to  our  mind  rash  and  hazardous,  contrary  to  the  universal  ex- 
perience of  Methodism,  and  unwarranted  by  any  special  condi- 
tions of  our  times.  But  to  these  points  we  shall  return  in  our 
next  chapter  on  the  modification  of  itinerancy  among  the  Ameri- 
can Methodists. 


1  English  Minutes,  1847,  Vol.  X.,  pp.  551-553. 


I  KANC  IS  ASBl  RY, 
AposlU-  of  American  Methodism. 


CHAPTEE  VI. 


The  Itinerancy  (Continued). 

In  our  study  of  American  itinerancy,  it  will  be  expedient 
first  of  all  rapidly  to  sketch  the  development  of  the  system 
from  the  arrival  of  the  earliest  itinerant  preachers  to  the  as- 
sembling of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Though  disturbed 
outwardly  by  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  which  falls  wholly 
within  this  period,  and  which  occasioned  the  return  home  of 
all  the  English  itinerants  except  Asbury;  and  though  inwardly 
convulsed  by  nearly  fatal  schism  within  the  Conference  itself, 
this  period  of  our  Church  life  and  administration  is  not  nearly 
so  chaotic  as  might  at  first  be  supposed,  and  will  be  found 
richly  to  repay  a  more  patient  and  minute  study  than  has  often 
been  bestowed  upon  it. 

"When  Francis  Asbury  landed  at  Philadelphia,  in  the  last 
week  of  October,  1771,  he  was  fully  convinced,  theoretically 
and  practically,  that  the  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline 
were  the  purest  and  most  efficient  then  taught  and  enforced 
anywhere  in  the  world.  He  confidently  anticipated  that  this 
world-wide  Arminian  plan  of  salvation,  and  this  world-wide 
scheme  of  itinerant  evangelization,  would  be  greatly  honored 
of  God  in  the  wilds  of  America.  In  1784  Coke  said,  "  He  will 
carry  his  gospel  by  thee  [Asbury]  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from 
one  end  of  the  continent  to  another;"  and  some  such  prophetic 
assurance  seems  to  have  been  granted  to  the  soul  of  Asbury 
himself,  if  we  may  judge  from  several  entries  in  his  Journal,  at 
the  beginning  of  his  apostolic  labors.  He  was  "  fixed  to  the 
Methodist  plan,"  and  when,  less  than  a  month  after  his  arrival 
on  the  continent,  he  found  his  itinerant  predecessor  and  chief 
of  administration,  Boardman,  lax  in  the  lase  and  enforcement 
of  itinerancy,  he  determined  "to  stand  against  all  opposition 
as  an  iron  pillar  strong,  and  steadfast  as  a  wall  of  brass."  He 

(57) 


58 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  MKTHODISM. 


sought  (1)  a  circulation  of  the  preachers  to  avoid  partiality 
and  popularity,  and  (2)  to  hinder  the  confinement  of  the 
labors  of  the  itinerants  to  the  cities,  chieflj'  New  York,  Phila- 
delphia, and  Baltimore.  These  convictions  abode  with  him 
and  guided  his  administration  for  forty-five  years,  1771-1816. 
He  never  yielded  to  popular  demands  for  the  relaxation  of 
Methodist  law  and  usage;  nor  accepted  the  estimates  of  lazy  or 
unconsecrated  preachers  as  to  what  was  feasible  or  desirable. 
In  his  "Valedictory  Address  to  William  McKendree,  Bishop 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  written  in  August,  1813, 
he  said:  "  Guard  particularly  against  two  orders  of  preachers — 
the  one  for  the  country,  the  other  for  the  cities.  .  .  .  You 
know,  my  brother,  that  the  present  ministerial  cant  is  that  w© 
cannot  now,  as  in  former  apostolical  days,  have  such  doctrines, 
such  discipline,  such  convictions,  such  conversions,  such  wit- 
nesses of  sanctification,  and  such  holy  men.  But  I  say  that  we 
can;  I  say  we  must;  yea,  I  say  we  have."  The  stuff  was  in  the 
man,  and  we  need  not  wonder  that  one  year  after  his  arrival  in 
America,  in  October,  1772,  Asbury,  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appoint- 
ment, succeeded  Boardman  as  the  American  assistant  and  head 
of  the  itinerant  forces.  Thomas  Eankin,  who  in  the  summer 
of  1773  relieved  Asbury  as  assistant,  was  a  man  of  like  loyalty 
to  Methodist  doctrine  and  discipline,  and  of  like  persistence  if 
not  like  ability.  "  To  these  two  thorough  disciplinarians,"  well 
remarks  Abel  Stevens,  "  we  owe  the  effective  organization  of 
the  incipient  Methodism  of  the  new  world.  Without  them  it 
seems  probable  that  it  would  have  adopted  a  settled  pastorate, 
and  become  blended  with  the  Anglican  Church  of  the  colonies, 
or,  like  the  fruits  of  Whitefield's  labors,  have  been  absorbed  in 
the  general  Protestantism  of  the  country." 

Until  1773  and  the  arrival  of  Eankin,  the  oversight  and  reg- 
ulation of  the  work  and  the  appointment  of  the  preachers  were 
attended  to  in  Quarterly  Conferences.  The  primitive  Ameri- 
can Methodist  organism  was  unicellular,  so  to  speak,  and  the 
quarterly  meetings  were  the  seats  of  initial  governmental  life 
in  the  Church.  So  great  an  advance  was  made  in  1773  that 
Asbury  says  of  the  Conference  of  that  year:  "Our  general  con- 
ference began:  in  which  the  following  propositions  were  agreed 
to,"  etc.^    The  Hi  st  (.^luiiterly  Conference  in  America  of  which 


^  Journal,  I.  55. 


THE  ITINERANCY. 


59 


any  record  remains  was  held  during  Asbury's  administration, 
and  under  his  presidency,  on  the  western  shore  of  Maryland, 
December  23,  1772.  He  preached  from  Acts  xx.  28,  recording 
in  his  Journal  an  outline  of  the  very  practical  sermon,  and  sta- 
tioned Strawbridge  and  Owen  in  Frederick;  King,  Webster, 
and  Rollins  on  the  other  side  of  the  bay;  and  himself  in  Balti- 
more. Thus  the  quarterly  meeting  was  a  very  effective  center 
for  the  distribution  of  itinerant  laborers,  who  might  be  nomi- 
nally local  preachers:  if  a  little  more  of  the  primitive  energy 
could  be  infused  into  both  the  modern  bodies  and  the  modern 
preachers  of  this  class,  it  might  be  well  for  modern  Metho- 
dism. The  better  use  of  the  machinery  we  have  might  prove 
wiser  than  the  manufacture  of  new.  At  Presbury's,  Straw- 
bridge,  a  married  man,  received  £8  quarterage,  and  Asbury 
and  King,  bachelors,  £6  each.  At  this  Conference  Asbury 
also  resisted  the  pleadings  of  the  sanguine  and  large-hearted 
Strawbridge,  and  refused  to  depart  from  the  Methodist  plan 
by  granting  permission  to  the  preachers  to  administer  the 
sacraments. 

Asbury  enjoyed  less  than  a  year  of  this  primitive  but  effect- 
ive administration,  when  he  was  superseded  by  the  appoint- 
ment and  arrival  of  Thomas  Rankin  with  Mr.  Wesley's  com- 
mission as  "  general  assistant "  for  America.  In  the  middle  of 
July,  1773,  about  six  weeks  after  his  landing,  Rankin  assem- 
bled for  the  first  time  the  preachers  of  all  the  American  cir- 
cuits in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  what  Asbury,  as  we  have 
seen,  calls  a  "general  conference,"  though  this  institution  did 
not  come  into  existence  or  acquire  legal  definition  and  fixa- 
tion in  the  Discipline  or  in  the  Church  until  nearly  twenty 
years  afterwards,  in  1792.  The  body,  though  exercising  lim- 
ited legislative  functions  and  supervising  the  whole  work, 
more  nearly  resembled  what  is  now  known  as  an  Annual 
Conference;  and  as  such  assemblies  continued  to  be  held  once 
a  year,  it  is  usual  to  designate  them,  though  with  considera- 
ble inexactness,  Annual  Conferences.  As  to  itinerancy,  Mr. 
Rankin  exercised  without  challenge  the  appointing  power  in 
this  Conference,  as  Boardman  and  Asbury  had  previously  done 
in  the  quarterly  meetings;  "the  preachers  were  stationed  in 
the  best  manner  we  could,"  he  says.  Asbury  and  Strawbridge, 
with  two  colleagues,  were  sent  to  Baltimore;  Wright  to  Nor- 


60 


THE  MAKISO  OF  METHODISM. 


folk;  Williams  to  Petersburg;  King  and  Watters  to  New  Jer- 
sey; Shadford  to  Philadelphia;  and  Kankin  to  New  York,  with 
the  express  proviso  that  the  two  latter  were  "  to  change  in  four 
months."^  This  is  tiie  first  formal  imposition  of  a  "time  lim- 
it" in  the  history  of  American  itinerancy.  At  the  Conference 
of  1774  we  find  a  list  of  six  standard  Annual  Conference  ques- 
tions introduced,  and  to  the  appointments  this  note  is  append- 
ed: "All  the  preachers  to  change  at  half  the  year's  end."^ 
From  the  minutes  of  the  next  year,  1775,  it  is  evident  that 
quarterly  and  possibly  more  frequent  changes  were  often  made; 
but  "to  change  in  one  quarter"  and  "at  half  the  year's  end" 
seem  to  have  become  standing  formulas  of  ministerial  appoint- 
ment.^ Six  months,  however,  became  the  first  normal  time 
limit  in  American  Methodism:  in  1782,  Question  7  is,  "How 
are  the  preachers  to  change  after  six  months?"  and  full  direc- 
tions are  given  at  the  Annual  Conference  session  for  the  bien- 
nial change.*  So  far  as  we  have  noted,  these  are  all  the  refer- 
ences to  the  subject  in  the  minutes  from  1773  to  1784.  For 
the  period  now  under  review,  however,  the  Rev.  John  Lednum 
declares  that  the  quarterly  meeting  which  Superintendent  Coke 
and  Presbyter  Whatcoat  attended  at  Barratt's  Chapel  in  Dela- 
ware, where  Asbury  and  Coke  first  met  and  fell  into  each  oth- 
er's arms,  was  the  regular  fall  quarterly  meeting  at  this  chap- 
el, at  which  it  was  the  custom  for  the  semiannual  change  to 
take  place  among  the  preachers  laboring  on  the  Peninsula.^ 
At  this  quarterly  meeting  Asbury  proposed  and  the  preachers 
present  united  in  calling  the  Christmas  Conference  for  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Church. 

In  1776  the  Conference  met  for  the  first  time  in  Baltimore, 
and  we  have  some  indications  of  how  a  young  itinerant  began 
his  career.  Freeborn  Garrettson  records  that  he  passed  an  ex- 
amination, and  received  from  Mr.  Eankin  a  written  license. 
The  Conference  of  1777  closed  the  energetic  Eankin's  admin- 
istration; that  year  he  made  the  appointments  for  the  fifth  and 
last  time.  He  left  thirty-six  itinerant  preachers  where  he  had 
found  ten,  and  just  six  times  as  many  members  as  composed 
the  infant  Church  when  he  became  general  assistant  or  super- 
intendent.   Mr.  Wesley  had  "  clothed  Mr.  Rankin  with  powers 

1  T^Iinutes,  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  6.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  10.  ^Ihid.,  pp.  14,  15.  *  Ibid.,  p.  52. 
» History  of  the  Rise  of  MethoJism  in  America,  Ed.  of  18G2,  p.  410. 


THE  iriXERAXCr. 


Gl 


Buperior  to  any  which  had  been  vested  in  his  predecessors  in 
office,"  remarks  Dr.  Bangs,  "  in  the  faithful  exercise  of  which 
he  set  himself  to  purifying  the  societies  from  corrupt  members, 
and  restoring  things  to  order.  It  was  soon  found  that  the  dis- 
charge of  this  duty,  however  painful,  instead  of  abridging  the 
influence  of  ministerial  labor,  greatly  extended  it,  and  exert- 
ed a  most  salutary  efiect  upon  the  societies."  '  Mr.  Asbury's 
testimony  is:  "Though  he  will  not  be  admired  as  a  preacher, 
yet  as  a  disciplinarian  he  will  fill  his  place." 

In  1778  Asbury  was  in  enforced  retirement  in  Delaware,  and 
the  Conference  was  held  in  May  under  the  presidency  of  AVil- 
liam  "Watters,  the  first  American  itinerant  preacher.  The  ir- 
regular Delaware  Conference  of  1779  recognized  Asbury  as 
general  assistant  on  account  of  his  seniority  in  America  and 
original  appointment  by  Mr.  "Wesley,  and  formally  accorded 
him  supreme  control:  "On  hearing  every  preacher  for  and 
against  what  is  in  debate,  the  right  of  determination  shall  rest 
with  him  according  to  the  minutes."  ^  The  regular  Conference 
assembled  at  Fluvanna,  probably  under  the  presidency  of  Phil- 
ip Gatch,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  later  rule  for  the 
trial  of  members  which  substituted  the  original  clerical  right 
of  excommunication.  From  the  beginning,  as  is  evident  from 
the  record  of  the  quarterly  meeting  of  1772,  and  particularly 
during  the  Kevolutionary  War,  which  was  now  actively  waging, 
the  need  of  the  administration  of  the  Christian  sacraments  had 
pressed  heavily  on  the  American  Methodists,  who  could  no  long- 
er command  the  services  of  the  English  clergy,  many  or  most  of 
whom  as  loyalists  had  retired  from  the  colonies.  Strawbridge 
had  probably  been  ordained:  it  is  certain  he  was  the  first 
Methodist  preacher  to  administer  the  sacraments  in  America. 
Few  Methodists  of  to-day  would  doubt  the  right,  or  even  the 
expediency,  of  the  origination  of  orders  by  the  Fluvanna  Con- 
ference, composed  of  public  and  recognized  ministers  of  the 
gospel,  who  had  long  labored  in  word  and  doctrine  among  the 
people.  Their  action  was  as  valid  as  that  of  the  British  Con- 
ference of  1836,  which,  as  was  pointed  out  in  the  last  chapter,  in- 
dependently initiated  ministerial  orders  by  the  imposition  of 
the  hands  of  chief  Conference  officers  who  had  not  themselves 

iBangs's  Histor}'  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Ed.  of  1830,  I.  SO, 
81.   2  Minutes,  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  29. 


62 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


been  ordained,  thus  cutting  completely  loose  from  all  preten- 
sion to  any  sort  of  tactual  succession,  whether  episcopal  or 
presbyterial.  This  Fluvanna  Conference  appointed  a  presby- 
tery composed  of  Gatch,  Ellis,  and  Foster,  to  be  assisted  by 
Cole,  if  his  services  were  needed,  and  authorized  these  breth- 
ren to  administer  the  sacraments  themselves,  and  jointly  to  or- 
dain.   Jesse  Lee  declares: 

The  committee  thus  chosen  first  ordained  themselves,  and  then  proceed- 
ed to  ordain  and  set  apart  other  preachers  for  the  same  purpose,  that  they 
might  administer  tlie  holy  ordinances  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  The  preach- 
ers thus  ordained  went  forth  preaching  the  gospel  in  their  circuits  as  for- 
merly, and  administered  tlie  sacraments  wherever  they  went,  provided  the 
people  were  willing  to  partake  with  them.  Most  part  of  our  preachers  in 
the  south  fell  in  with  this  new  plan ;  and  as  the  leaders  of  the  party  were 
very  zealous,  and  the  greater  part  of  them  very  pious  men,  tlie  private 
members  were  influenced  by  them,  and  pretty  generally  fell  in  with  their 
measures.  However,  some  of  the  old  Methodists  would  not  commune  with 
them,  but  steadily  adhered  to  their  former  customs.^ 

The  Asburyan  Conference  of  the  following  year  strongly  and 
unanimously  disapproved  this  Virginia  departure  from  the  orig- 
inal Methodist  plan,  and  resolved  that  "  we  look  upon  them  no 
longer  as  Methodists  in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us  until 
they  come  back."  ^  All  the  loyal  itinerants  were  required  to  hold 
a  license  annually  renewed  by  Asbury;  the  trusteeships  of  the 
preaching  houses  were  carefully  guarded;  and  Asbury,  Garrett- 
son,  and  Watters  were  appointed  commissioners  to  the  southern 
Conference  to  negotiate  a  union  on  the  condition  that  the  south- 
erners "suspend  all  their  ministrations  for  one  year,  and  all 
[north  and  south]  meet  together  at  Baltimore."^  These  com- 
missioners attended  the  regular  Conference  at  Manakintown 
in  May,  1780,  and  were  successful  in  their  mission:  American 
Methodist  ordinations  and  sacraments  ceased  until  Dr.  Coke's 
arrival  and  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference  in  1784. 

At  the  Conference  of  1781  the  itinerants  resolved  "to  preach 
the  old  Methodist  doctrine,  and  strictly  enforce  the  discipline 
as  contained  in  the  notes,  sermons,  and  minutes  as  published  by 
Mr.  Wesley."  *  The  Fluvanna  (or  regular)  Conference  of  1779 
had  enacted  that  the  ministerial  probationers  of  that  year  should 
be  continued  on  trial  a  second  year  until  the  next  Conference:  ^ 


1  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  69,  70.  '  Minutes,  Ed.  of  1795, 
p.  38.   ^Ihid.,  p.  39.   *im.,  p.  41.   Ubid.,  p.  33. 


THE  ITINERANCY. 


the  reunited  Couference  of  1781  resolved  that  it  would  be  bet- 
ter, "considering  how  young  they  [the  preachers]  are  in  age, 
grace,  and  gifts,  to  try  thena  two  years,  unless  it  be  one  of  dou- 
ble testimony,  of  whom  there  is  a  general  approbation."  '  This 
period  of  probation  for  admission  into  full  connection  with  Con- 
ference has  never  been  changed:  for  one  hundred  and  fifteen 
years  American  Methodist  preachers  have  been  subjected  to 
this  two  years'  trial  of  their  ministerial  character  and  efiicieucy 
before  admission  to  full  Conference  rights  and  standing.  At 
this  Conference  assistants,  or  preachers  in  charge,  were  also 
forbidden  to  employ  local  preachers  without  consultation  with 
Mr.  Asbury  or  the  senior  assistants.  The  germs  of  a  Confer- 
ence course  of  study  also  appear  in  the  direction  to  the  preach- 
ers "  often  to  read  the  Kules  of  the  Societies,  the  Character  of 
a  Methodist,  and  the  Plain  Account"  ^ 

Since  the  schism  of  1779  and  1780,  in  each  of  which  years 
two  Conferences  were  held,  the  Couference,  justifying  its  course 
by  Mr.  Wesley's  precedent  in  holding  a  Conference  in  Ireland, 
had  continued  to  meet  in  two  sections,  the  first  session  of  1781 
being  held  at  Choptank,  in  Delaware,  and  of  1782  at  Ellis's,  in 
Virginia,  while  the  final  sessions  of  both  years  were  held  in 
Baltimore.  There  are  indications  of  a  growing  legislative  and 
electoral  independence  on  the  part  of  the  preachers,  which 
fully  asserted  itself  as  early  as  1782.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Delaware  Conference  of  1779  had  given  Mr.  Asbury 
the  decision  of  all  questions  introduced  and  debated  in  Con- 
ference: the  Conference  of  1782  framed  its  question  recogniz- 
ing Mr.  Asbury's  station  and  authority  somewhat  difPerently: 
"  Do  the  brethren  in  Conference  unanimously  choose  broth- 
er Asbury  to  act  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  original  appoint- 
ment, and  preside  over  the  American  Conferences  and  the  whole 
work?  "  To  the  question  thus  modified  an  affirmative  answer  is 
recorded.  The  American  general  assistant  no  longer  exercised 
the  absolute  authority  formerly  accorded  him,  like  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley used  in  England  and  exercised  by  Mr.  Kankin  during  his 
administration  in  the  colonics.  Mr.  Asbury  held  office  by  the 
double  tenure  of  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  and  Conference 
election;  but  the  last  was  immediate  and  essential,  though  em- 
bodying a  recognition  of  the  former.    Majority  rule  thus  began 


1  Minutes,  Ed.  of  1795,  p.  42.    2  Ibid.,  pp.  42,  43. 


64 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


to  manifest  itself.  Accordingly,  at  the  Christmas  Conference  in 
1784  Asbury  himself  insisted  on  election  to  the  episcopal  office  by 
the  Conference,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Wesley's  designation,  and 
in  that  body  all  measures  were  decided  by  a  majority  of  votes. 
As  late  as  1787  there  was  trouble  between  the  Americans  and 
Mr.  Wesley  on  this  point.  "  Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Mr. 
Whatcoat  a  superintendent,"  deposes  Thomas  Ware,  "and  in- 
structed Dr.  Coke  to  introduce  [i.  e.,  to  reintroduce]  a  usage 
among  us,  to  which,  I  may  say,  there  was  not  one  of  the 
preachers  inclined  to  submit,  much  as  they  loved  and  honored 
him.  Mr.  Wesley  had  been  in  the  habit  of  calling  his  preach- 
ers together,  not  to  legislate,  but  to  confer.  Many  of  them  he 
found  to  be  excellent  counselors,  and  he  heard  them  respectful- 
ly on  the  weighty  matters  which  were  brought  before  them; 
but  the  right  to  decide  all  questions  he  reserved  to  himself. 
This  he  deemed  the  more  excellent  way;  and,  as  we  had  volun- 
teered and  pledged  ourselves  to  obey  [in  1784],  he  instructed 
the  doctor,  conformably  to  his  own  usage,  to  put  as  few  ques- 
tions to  vote  as  possible,  saying:  'If  you,  brother  Asbury  and 
brother  Whatcoat,  are  agreed,  it  is  enough.'  To  place  the 
power  of  deciding  all  questions  discussed,  or  nearly  all,  in  the 
hands  of  the  superintendents,  was  what  could  never  be  intro- 
duced among  us — a  fact  which  we  thought  Mr.  Wesley  could 
not  but  have  known,  had  he  known  us  as  well  as  we  ought  to 
have  been  known  by  Dr.  Coke."  ^ 

Under  the  head  of  this  same  year  1782,  which  we  have  now 
reached,  Jesse  Lee  gives  an  exact  account  of  the  legislative 
powers  and  relations  of  the  two  Conference  sessions,  Virginia 
and  Baltimore: 

The  work  had  so  increased  and  spread  that  it  was  now  found  nec- 
essary to  have  a  Conference  in  the  south  every  year,  continuing  the  Con- 
ference in  the  north  as  usual.  Yet,  as  the  Conference  in  the  north  was 
of  the  longest  standing,  and  withal  composed  of  the  oldest  preachers,  it  was 
allowed  greater  privileges  than  that  in  the  south;  especially  in  making 
rules  and  forming  regulations  for  the  societies.  Accordingly,  when  any- 
thing was  agreed  to  in  the  Virginia  Conference  and  afterwards  disapproved 
of  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  it  was  dropped.  But  if  any  rule  was  fixed 
and  determined  on  at  the  Baltimore  Conference,  the  preachers  in  the  south 
were  under  the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it.  The  southern  Conference  was 
considered  at  that  time  as  a  convenience,  and  designed  to  accommodate  the 


1  Sketches  ol  the  Life  and  Travels  of  Rev.  Thomas  Ware,  Ed.  1842,  pp.  129,  130. 


THE  ITINERANCY. 


65 


preachers  in  that  part  of  the  work,  and  to  do  all  the  business  of  a  regular 
Conference,  except  that  of  making  or  altering  particular  rules.-' 

This  all-important  passage  of  Lee's,  in  immediate  connection 
witli  the  Conferences  of  1782,  together  with  the  modified  ques- 
tion concerning  Mr.  Asbury  in  the  minutes  of  the  same  year, 
indicates  very  fully  and  accurately  the  legislative  and  electoral 
powers  of  the  Conferences  and  their  president's  relation  to  them 
— all  of  which  differ  very  widely  from  what  we  now  know  as  An- 
nual Conferences — and  the  governmental  regimen  under  which 
the  American  Methodists  lived  from  at  least  the  year  1782  for- 
ward. The  itinerant  preachers  had  steadily  acquired  legislative 
independence  and  authority,  and  in  1784  responded  cheerfully 
and  generally  to  Asbury's  call  to  attend  the  organizing  Christ- 
mas Conference  and  consider  the  plans  of  Mr.  "Wesley.  Three 
remaining  questions  and  answers  in  the  minutes  of  1782  indicate 
increasing  organization  and  solidification  of  the  itinerant  system: 

Quest.  12.  What  shall  be  done  to  get  a  regular  and  impartial  supply  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  Preachers? 

Answ.  Let  everything  they  receive,  either  in  money  or  clothing,  be  valued 
by  the  preachers  and  stewards  at  quarterly  meeting,  and  an  account  of  the 
deficiency  given  in  to  the  Conference,  that  he  may  be  supplied  by  the  prof- 
its arising  from  the  books  and  the  Conference  collections. 

Qae-4.  13.  How  shall  we  more  efifectually  guard  against  disorderly  travel- 
ing Preachers? 

Answ.  Write  at  the  bottom  of  every  certificate.  The  authority  this  conveys 
ifi  limited  to  next  Conference. 

Qaest.  14.  How  must  we  do  if  a  Preacher  will  not  desist  after  being  found 
guilty? 

Answ.  Let  the  nearest  Assistant  stop  him  immediately.  In  brother  As- 
bury's absence,  let  the  preachers  inform  the  people  of  these  rules. 2 

From  even  those  days  of  primitive  organization  antedating 
the  Christmas  Conference  till  these,  "  the  profits  arising  from  the 
books  and  the  Conference  collections  "  have  continued  a  source 
of  supply  for  the  commissary  of  the  ceaselessly  moving  army 
of  American  itinerants;  and  the  regulations  of  the  Church  for 
controlling  her  disorderly  representatives  have  gone  on  multi- 
plying. Here  the  first  period  in  the  history  of  American  itin- 
erancy naturally  ends:  such  were  the  general  conditions  in 
which  the  convening  of  the  Christmas  Conference  found  the 
American  Methodists. 


» Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  pp.  78,  79.  2]viinutes,  Ed.  of 
1795,  p.  54. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Itinekancy  (Concluded). 

The  chief  siyiiificauce  of  the  Christmas  Conference  for  Amer- 
ican itiner&Q-jy  and  for  American  Methodism  is  its  initiation 
of  ministerial  orders  among  the  American  preachers,  and  its 
bestowal  of  the  Christian  sacraments  upon  the  American  Soci- 
eties. This  vv^as  in  effect,  as  we  have  before  seen,  to  constitute 
a  Church.  That  these  orders  and  sacraments  were  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's chief  design  in  sending  over  Coke  and  his  companions  is 
clearly  evident,  both  from  the  oft-quoted  Bristol  circular  letter 
and  from  the  parchments  of  Coke  and  Whatcoat.  The  Christ- 
mas Conference  made  no  change  in  the  system  of  Conference 
.government  under  which  it  found  the  American  preachers  and 
Societies.  All  the  electoral  powers  exercised  bj  itself  it  ex- 
pressly confided  to  the  Annual  Conference,  which  continued  the 
use  of  the  legislative  powers  which  it  had  begun  to  exercise 
before  the  Christmas  Conference  met.  The  necessities  of 
government,  particularly  of  adequate  and  prompt  legislation, 
which  gave  birth  to  the  General  Conference,  did  not  then  ex- 
ist, and  did  not  actually  produce  this  organ  and  system  of  gov- 
ernment until  after  the  Council  had  been  tried  and  found  want- 
ing. After  a  brief  session,  this  organizing  body  expired — to 
live  no  more  forever.  That  it  was  not  itself  a  General  Confer- 
ence, in  any  legal  or  Disciplinary  sense,  is  evident,  not  only  fi-om 
the  fact  that  no  siTch  institution  is  known  to  American  Meth- 
odist law,  as  recorded  in  the  Minutes  and  Disciplines  from  1773 
to  1791;  but,  among  a  score  or  more  of  other  reasons  which  we 
need  not  tarry  to  recite  in  this  connection,  because  it  did  not 
sustain  the  relation  of  a  supreme  and  final  lawmaker  to  the 
Annual  Conferences  which  met  in  the  interval,  1785  to  1791, 
between  its  own  adjournment  and  the  assembling  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1792.  Such  unchangeable  legal  supremacy 
(66) 


THE  ITTXERAXCr. 


G7 


over  the  Annual  Conferences  till  the  meeting  of  its  successor 
is  an  essential  characteristic  of  every  General  Conference. 
Since  its  legislation  was  alterable  and  altered  by  the  Annual 
Conferences  from  1785  to  1791,  resulting  in  the  issue  of  annual 
editions  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  each  of  which  super- 
seded the  authority  of  its  predecessor,  it  is  plain  to  a  demon- 
stration (1)  that  the  Christmas  Conference  was  not  a  General 
Conference;  (2)  that  the  General  Conference  of  1792  was  not  a 
successor  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  since  it  sustains  no 
such  relation  to  that  body  as  all  subsequent  General  Confer- 
ences, from  1796  to  1894,  sustain  to  their  predecessors;  (3) 
that  the  interval  from  1785  to  1792  cannot  be  included  within 
the  period  of  the  government  of  our  Church  by  the  authority 
of  General  Conferences;  (4)  that  the  General  Conference  of 
1792  was  the  first;  and  (5)  that  the  Christmas  Conference  is 
not  entitled  to  recognition  in  the  series  of  General  Conferences. 

The  Church  thus  organized  was  an  Episcopal  Church:  (1) 
by  expressly  chosen  title;  (2)  by  the  sure  and  certain  testimo- 
ny of  contemporary  documents  and  witnesses;  (3)  by  the  pre- 
ceding affiliations  of  the  Societies  and  their  founder  and 
American  leaders;  (4)  by  its  threefold  ordinations,  first  in 
Eugland  and  then  in  America;  (5)  by  virtue  of  the  nonexist- 
ence of  an  Episcopal  Church  in  this  counti'y  at  the  time  of  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  this  nonex- 
istence being  expressly  assigned  as  the  sufficient  reason  for 
creating  this  Church.  It  was  not  a  secession.  There  was 
nothing  to  secede  from.  It  was  not  a  schism.  There  was  no 
episcopally  organized  body  of  Christ  in  America  in  which  to 
create  a  schism.  Since  it  did  not  exist,  the  American  Metho- 
dists could  not  be  in  communion  with  any  such  body.  If  the 
single  point  be  allowed  that  jjresbyters  can  make  a  bishop,  and 
that  when  he  is  made  he  is  made,  the  subsequently  organized 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  itself,  according  to  its  own 
principles,  a  schismatic  body  in  this  New  World.  The  dea- 
cons, elders,  and  superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  were  the  American  equivalents,  in  name  and  fact,  of 
the  deacons,  priests,  and  bishops  of  the  English  Church.  The 
""^''luvanna  orders  and  sacraments,  though  rational  and  scrip- 
tural, had  lapsed  and  ceased;  repudiated  at  the  time  by  As- 
bury  and  those  acting  with  him,  and  abandoned  by  those  who 


63 


77/ A'  MAKING  OF  MKriWDISM. 


promoted  and  originated  them,  tlie  action  of  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  Christmas  Conference  was  the  final  exclusion  of  the  Flu- 
vanna plan  and  conception,  with  its  results,  from  the  organiza- 
tion of  American  Methodism.  This  exclusion  proceeded  to 
the  extent  of  reordaining  men  who  had  been  ordained  by  the 
Fluvanna  presbytery,  and  the  episcopal  idea  was  emphasized 
by  the  three  ordinations  of  Asbury  on  as  many  successive 
days.  Acknowledging  with  all  our  heart  the  validity  of  those 
Fluvanna  ordinations,  and  of  all  presbyterial  and  congrega- 
tional orders,  we  must  still  cling  as  an  historian  to  the  un- 
doubted fact  that  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  Christmas  Conference 
fully  intended  the  organization  of  a  valid  American  Episcopal 
Church,  and  deliberately  conformed,  according  to  their  convic- 
tions of  scriptural  teaching  and  views  of  ancient  precedent,  to 
all  the  conditions  necessary  to  etfect  the  legitimate  and  perma- 
nent founding  of  such  a  Church  to  succeed  the  Church  of  En- 
gland in  the  American  states.  The  result  was  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

In  this  fully  constituted  Episcopal  Church  itinerancy  contin- 
ued to  be  a  distinguishing  feature,  as  it  had  been  in  the  Amer- 
ican Societies  from  1773  or  earlier  to  1784.  Its  history  through- 
out that  period  we  have  carefully  traced.  A  rapid  survey  of  the 
facts  and  principles  of  its  continued  existence  and  develop- 
ment to  the  present  day  will  complete  our  task.  The  episco- 
pacy and  the  presiding  eldership,  as  related  to  each  other,  to 
the  itinerancy,  and  to  the  Church,  have  already  passed  under 
review.  No  slightest  modification  of  the  appointing  power  has 
ever  taken  place.  O'Kelly's  proposal  of  liberty  of  appeal  from 
the  bishop  to  the  Conference  when  the  appointment  was  not 
satisfactory  was  overwhelmingly  defeated  in  the  first  General 
Conference  of  1792.  In  1800,  when,  on  the  election  of  What- 
coat,  many  attempts,  some  of  them  fathered  by  Coke,  were 
made  variously  to  modify  the  appointing  power  of  the  new 
bishop  before  his  election,  nothing  was  done.  In  1820-1824 
a  like  failure  attended  all  the  efforts  of  the  radical  reformers 
to  engraft  the  presiding  eldership  on  the  episcopacy  as  a  legal 
element  of  the  appointing  power.  The  bishop  does  not  share 
this  responsibility  with  cabinet  or  laymen.  Eelief  comes  in 
the  changing  presidency  of  the  Annual  Conferences.  The  in- 
alienable remedy,  moreover,  of  the  dissatisfied  itinerant  is  loca- 


THE  ITIXERANCr. 


G9 


tion.  The  itinerancy  rests  upon  a  voluntary  compact  of  mutual 
satisfaction,  which  may  be  dissolved  at  the  will  of  either  party, 
exercised  according  to  law  made  and  provided.  The  Church 
does  not  lay  upon  any  one  of  her  members  or  local  preach- 
ers the  duties  of  an  itinerant  preacher.  The  initiative  is  with 
the  individual  who  seeks  a  recommendation  from  the  proper 
lower  court,  and  becomes  a  candidate  for  admission  on  trial — 
not  into  a  particular  Annual  Conference,  which  is  merely  one 
of  a  number  of  coordinate  agents  of  the  Church  for  perform- 
ing this  function,  but  into  the  "  traveling  connection."  Hence 
the  itinerant's  vow  on  reception  into  full  connection  to  "do 
that  part  of  the  work  which  we  advise,  at  those  times  and 
places  which  we  judge  most  for  his  [God's]  glory."  Hence 
the  prerogative  of  transfer  to  be  freely  exercised  by  the  epis- 
copacy in  fixing  the  appointments  of  the  preachers.  Since  the 
obligations  of  itinerancy  are  freely  assumed  and  continued  by  the 
individual  preacher,  and  since  the  Church  assumes  through  the 
Annual  Conference  the  prerogative  of  annually  determining  the 
"relation"  of  the  preacher,  whether  it  shall  be  that  of  an  "ef- 
fective "  preacher,  a  superannuate,  a  supernumerary,  or  merely 
that  of  a  local  preacher,  if  in  the  judgment  of  the  Conference 
he  becomes  "  so  unacceptable,  inefficient,  or  secular  as  to  be  no 
longer  useful  in  his  work,"  there  resides  also  in  the  blameless 
itinerant  the  power  and  right  of  discontinuing  these  voluntari- 
ly assumed  duties  of  itinerancy  whenever  for  reasons  satisfac- 
tory to  himself  he  becomes  unwilling,  or  judges  himself  un- 
able, to  continue  their  discharge.  The  Church  does  the  itin- 
erant no  injiistice  whenever  for  the  Disciplinary  reasons  she 
locates  him  without  his  consent.  He  cannot  force  himself  on 
an  unwilling  Conference  and  people.  The  itinerant  does  the 
Church  no  injustice  when,  having  completed  the  faithful  per- 
formance of  the  work  assigned  him,  and  maintained  his  integ- 
rity as  a  minister  of  Christ,  he,  at  the  annual  season  when  the 
Church  measures,  judges,  and  readjusts  him  in  his  ministerial 
relations,  gives  notice  of  his  desire  to  retire  to  the  local  ranks. 
The  Church  cannot  force  a  blameless,  unwilling  man  to  con- 
tinue his  itinerancy. 

The  advantages  of  Methodist  itinerancy  may  be  summed  up 
onder  the  following  heads: 

1.  Every  variety  of  talent  is  made  available.    Our  churches 


70 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


vary  greatly;  so  do  our  ministers.  If  a  fit  junction  of  preach- 
er and  people  can  be  effected  by  a  wise  appointing  power,  all 
classes  of  people  are  served,  and  all  classes  of  ministers,  even 
those  capable  of  but  limited  usefulness,  are  brought  into  serv- 
ice. The  Lord  of  the  harvest  calls  many  men  of  many  minds; 
the  itinerancy  sends  them  into  his  harvest. 

2.  Each  itinerant's  life  work  is  made  to  cover  a  wider  field, 
r.nd  probably  in  a  large  majority  of  instances  to  yield  larger 
results.  Careful  statistics  show  that  the  average  Methodist 
pastorate  is  longer  than  that  of  most  denominations  with  the 
so-called  "settled"  pastorate.  If  a  Methodist  pastorate  among 
us  is  never  longer  than  four  years,  it  is  seldom  shorter  than 
one.  Presbyterian  and  Baptist  pastorates  of  sis  months,  three 
months,  one  month,  are  not  rare.  Most  men  who  have  spent 
four  years  in  a  single  field  can  accomplish  more  for  the  next 
four  years  in  a  new  field;  and  a  new  man  of  no  greater  ability 
will  be  likely  to  do  more  in  the  field  just  abandoned  by  his 
equal. 

3.  No  Methodist  itinerant  preacher  is  left  without  an  as- 
signed sphere  of  ministerial  duty  or  denied  the  means  of  sup- 
port. In  contrast  with  the  many  idle  ministers  of  other  de- 
nominations, this  is  no  mean  excellence  of  itinerancy. 

4.  No  Methodist  Church  can  be  left  above  a  few  weeks  with- 
out a  pastor.  The  pastorless  flock  is  practically  unknown  in 
Methodism. 

5.  Separations  of  preachers  and  people  the  continuance 
of  whose  relations  has  become  unprofitable  or  undesirable 
are  effected  in  the  easiest  manner  by  the  interposition  of 
an  external  authority  whose  jurisdiction  is  acknowledged  by 
both.  Ministers  do  not  linger  on  for  years  in  charge  of  partic- 
ular congregations  after  their  usefulness  is  ended.  Congrega- 
tions are  not  rent  into  factions  over  the  calling,  continuance, 
or  dismissal  of  ministers. 

A  few  items  of  general  interest  may  be  gathered  up  here  in 
concluding  our  history  of  itinerancy.  In  1804  the  General  Con- 
ference limited  the  appointing  power  of  the  bishops  by  fixing 
the  extent  of  the  pastoral  term  at  two  years.  So  it  remained 
among  us  until  1866,  when  the  General  Conference  extended 
the  limit  to  four  years,  at  which  it  has  now  remained  for  thirty 
years.    There  is  very  general  satisfaction  with  the  law  as  it 


THE  ITIXERAyCY. 


71 


stands,  aud  it  is  safe  to  predict  that  no  change  will  be  made 
for  many  years  to  come.  Some  notions  of  the  exclusive  valid- 
ity of  episcopal  ordinations  lingered  in  the  Church  iintil  quite 
a  late  date.  In  1824  Eoszel  moved  in  the  General  Conference 
that  when  a  minister  "  has  been  regularly  ordained  by  a  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  such  ordination  shall  be, 
and  hereby  is,  considered  valid."  In  1838  John  Early  moved, 
and  it  was  carried,  "that  the  bishops  be  requested  to  select 
some  suitable  and  competent  person  to  prepare  for  publica- 
tion a  vindication  of  our  episcopal  ordination."  The  validity  of 
presbyterial  and  congregational  orders  has  long  since  ceased 
to  be  a  question  in  Methodism;  but  the  history  and  legis- 
lation, actual  and  proposed,  from  the  founding  of  our  Church 
down  to  as  late  as  1836,  demonstrate  the  historical  falsity  of 
the  note  prefixed  to  the  office  for  the  consecration  of  a  bishop 
by  order  of  the  Northern  General  Conference  of  1884.  1884 
has  no  standing  against  1784  as  a  witness  to  the  history  of  the 
making  of  Methodism,  and  however  accurately  the  note  of  1884 
may  represent  the  present  sentiments  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  North,  it  is  demonstrably  without  histor- 
ical foundation. 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  GENERAL 
AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES. 

I.  The  Origin  of  the  Cheistjias  CoNrEiiENCE. 
II.  The  Organization,  Membership,  and  Minutes  of  the 
Christmas  Conference. 

III.  Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence. 

IV.  The  Historical  Development. 

V.  The  Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government 
IN  American  Methodism. 

(73) 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Confebences. 

I.  The  Origin  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 

The  history  of  the  calling  of  the  body  generally  known  as  the 
Christmas  Conference,  at  which  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
was  organized,  may  be  briefly,  but  completely  and  precisely, 
given.  When  Dr.  Coke,  whom  John  Wesley  had  previously 
"set  apart  as  a  superintendent,  by  the  imposition  of"  his 
"hands,  and  prayer,"^  with  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomiis 
Vasey,  each  of  whom  the  same  scriptural  ei)isco2)i(s  had  "sit 
apart  for  the  said  work  [of  the  ministry  in  America],  as 
an  elder,"  ^  landed  in  New  York,  Wednesday,  November  3, 
1784,  the  new  American  "joint  superintendent,"^  thus  or- 
dained and  commissioned,  makes  the  following  entry  in  his 
Journal : 

I  have  opened  Mr.  Wesley's  plan  to  brother  Dickins,  the  travelling-prfaclier 
stationed  at  this  place,  and  he  highly  approves  of  it,  says  that  all  the  preach- 
ers most  earnestly  long  for  such  a  reformation,  and  that  brother  Asbury,  he 
is  sure,  will  consent  to  it.  He  presses  me  earnestly  to  make  it  pnV)lic, 
because,  as  he  most  justly  argues,  Mr.  Wesley  has  determined  the  point, 
though  Mr.  Asbury  is  most  respectfully  to  be  consulted  in  respect  to 
every  part  of  the  execution  of  it.  By  some  means  or  other,  the  whole  con- 
tinent, as  it  were,  expects  me.  Mr.  Asbury  himself  has  for  some  time  ex- 
pected me.'* 

So  far  as  appears  from  the  record.  Dr.  Coke  declined  Mr. 


^The  language  of  Coke's  "letters  of  episcopal  orders"  (so  entitled  in  the 
Discipline  of  1789,  p.  4) :  see  the  facsimile  reproduction  of  Coke's  parchment: 
London,  1881. 

2  Wliatcoat's  Certificate  of  Ordination:  Life  of  Whatcoat,  by  Benjamin  St. 
James  Fry,  pp.  43,  44. 

8  So  styled  in  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter,  dated  September  10,  1784. 

^Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  May,  1789,  p.  242;  The  Methodist 
Review,  September,  1896,  p.  7;  Tigert's  edition  of  Coke's  Journal,  p.  7.  The 
italics  of  the  original  are  retained. 

(75) 


73 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


Dickins's  advice  to  make  public  "  Mr.  Wesley's  plan  "  at  New 
York;  but  at  Philadelphia,  Sunday,  November  7,  after  preach- 
ing to  the  Methodists  in  the  evening,  having  preached  morning 
and  afternoon  at  St.  Paul's  for  the  Episcopalians,  the  doctor 
"opened  to  the  society  our  new  plan  of  church-government," 
and,  he  adds,  "I  have  reason  to  believe  that  they  all  rejoice  in 
it."  ^  On  the  following  Sunday,  November  14,  1784,  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury  met  for  the  first  time  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  in 
Delaware.  The  following  is  Coke's  account  of  the  steps  then 
and  there  taken  for  the  calling  of  the  Christmas  Conference: 

After  dining  in  company  with  eleven  of  the  preachers  at  our  sister  Bar- 
rel's,  about  a  mile  from  the  chapel,  I  privately  opened  our  plan  to  Mr.  As- 
bury. He  expressed  considerable  doubts  concerning  it,  which  I  rather  ap- 
plaud than  otherwise;  but  informed  me  that  he  had  received  some  intima- 
tions of  my  arrival  on  the  continent;  and  as  he  thought  it  probable  I  might 
meet  him  on  that  day,  and  might  have  something  of  importance  to  commu- 
nicate to  him  from  Mr.  Wesley,  he  had  therefore  called  together  a  considera- 
ble number  of  the  preachers  to  form  a  council;  and  if  they  were  of  opinion 
that  it  would  be  expedient  immediately  to  call  a  conference,  it  should  be 
done.  They  were  accordingly  called,  and,  after  debate,  were  unanimously  of 
opinion  that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to  call  a  conference  of  all  the 
travelling-preachers  on  the  continent.  We  therefore  sent  off  Freeborn  Gar- 
retsiya  like  an  arrow,  the  whole  length  of  the  continent,  or  of  our  work,  di- 
recting him  to  send  messengers  to  the  right  and  left,  and  to  gather  all  the 
preachers  together  at  Baltimore,  on  Chrislmas-Eve? 

Mr.  Asbury's  entry  concerning  the  communications  of  Dr. 
Coke  and  the  calling  of  the  Conference,  under  the  same  date,  is 
as  follows: 

I  was  shocked  when  first  informed  of  the  intention  of  these  my  brethren 
in  coming  to  this  country:  it  may  be  of  God.  My  answer  then  was,  if  the 
preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  capacity  I  have 
hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment.  The  design  of  organizing  the 
Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church  was  opened  to  the  preach- 
ers piesent,  and  it  was  agreed  to  call  a  general  conference,  to  meet  at  Balti- 
more the  ensuing  Chi  is^tmas;  as  also  that  brother  Garrettson  go  off  to  Vir- 
ginia to  give  notice  thereof  to  our  brethren  in  the  South." 

These  contemporary  records  of  the  two  chief  participants  in 
the  "council"  at  Barratt's,  which  called  the  Christmas  Confer- 

1  See  the  same  page  of  all  the  publications  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
footnote.  ^  Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  May,  1789,  pp.  243,  244;  The 
Methodist  Review,  September,  1896,  p.  8;  Tigert's  edition  of  Coke's  Journal, 
p.  8.  *  Asbury's  Journal,  edition  of  1821,  i.  376.  Asbury's  date  is  Sunday, 
November  15,  but  the  day  of  the  month  is  clearly  wrong  by  one  day. 


GEXESrS  OF  GEXERAL  AND  ANNUAL  COSFERRNCES.  77 


ence,  take  us  to  the  fountain  head  of  information,  whence  all  the 
authorities  draw.  A  simple  analysis  of  these  primitive  accounts 
of  the  genesis  of  the  Christmas  Conference  by  Dr.  Coke  and 
Mr.  Asbury  yields  these  results: 

(1)  The  Christmas  Conference  was  not  of  appointment  in 
"Mr.  Wesley's  plan"  for  "organizing  the  Methodists  into  an 
Independent  Episcopal  Church,"  but  Mr.  Asbury,  expecting  the 
interview  with  Dr.  Coke,  had  "called  together  a  considerable 
number  of  the  preachers  to  form  a  council."  These  preachers 
"were  accordingly  called,  and,  after  debate,  were  unanimously 
of  opinion  that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to  call  a  confer- 
ence of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent";  or,  sub- 
stituting Mr.  Asbury's  language  for  Dr.  Coke's,  Mr.  Wesley's 
"design  of  organizing"  having  been  "opened  to  the  preachers 
present,"  "  it  was  agreed  to  call  a  general  conference."  Here  it 
may  be  added  that  Mr.  Wesley's  documents  sent  by  the  hand  of 
Coke,  and  Coke's  and  Whatcoat's  parchments,  are  silent  as  to 
any  new  Conference,  either  for  the  organization  or  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  American  Church,  whose  first  superintendent 
and  elders  Mr.  Wesley  had  taken  the  liberty,  if  liberty  it  was, 
of  selecting  and  ordaining.  In  view  of  Mr.  Wesley's  ordina- 
tions, parchments,  circular  letter,  and  liturgy,  his  directions  con- 
cerning Mr.  Asbury's  joint  superintendency,  and  his  silence  as 
to  any  general  gathering  of  the  preachers  to  pass  on  these 
measures  and  plans,  well  might  Mr.  Dickins  "most  justly 
argue,"  when  informed  of  the  character  in  which,  and  the  in- 
structions with  which,  Dr.  Coke  and  his  attendant  presbyters 
came,  that  "  Mr.  Wesley  had  determined  the  point,"  and,  since 
it  was  scarcely  evident  that  anything  more  needed  to  be  done, 
"earnestly  press"  Superintendent  Coke  "to  make  it  public" 
and  proceed  to  the  execution  of  it.  This  publicity  to  "our  new 
plan  of  church-government"  Dr.  Coke  actually  gave  at  Phila- 
delphia November  7,  1784:  an  act  of  unpardonable  indiscretion 
if  the  execution  of  the  plan  hinged  in  Mr.  Wesley's  instruc- 
tions upon  the  approval  of  it  by  a  conference  of  the  preachers 
yet  to  be  assembled.^ 

^In  the  London  edition  of  extracts  from  Dr.  Coke's  Journal  (1793)  the 
language  is  stronger:  "  He  presses  me  most  earnestly  to  make  it  public,  be- 
cause, as  he  most  justly  argues,  Mr.  Wesley  has  determined  the  point,  and 
therefore  it  is  not  to  be  investigated,  but  complied  with."  We  here  content 
ourself  with  the  milder  but  suflScient  statement  of  the  American  edition. 


78 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


(2)  Dr.  Coke,  having  been  ordained  and  commissioned,  did 
not  take  the  initiative  for  assembling  a  called  Conference:  that 
it  was  a  called  body  is  now  evident  from  both  of  these  con- 
temporary accounts.  Neither  in  his  personal  or  official  posi- 
tion, nor  in  his  instructions  from  Mr.  Wesley,  does  it  appear  that 
he  discovered  any  ground  for  calling  a  "conference  of  all  the 
traveling  preachers  on  the  continent." 

(3)  That  the  twelfth  and  last  Conference  before  the  Episco- 
pal organization  of  American  Methodism,  which  was  "  begun  at 
Ellis's  Preaching-House,  Virginia,  April  30th,  1784,  and  ended  at 
Baltimore  May  28th,  following,"  ^  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  orig- 
ination, calling,  or  organization  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  state.  That  conference  adjourned  to  meet 
in  three  sections — what  we  may  call  the  Carolina,  Virginia,  and 
Baltimore  divisions,  in  1785 — and  these  three  meetings  were  all 
held  accordingly,  though  not  at  the  dates  specified  in  the  spring 
of  1784.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  clearly  a  called  meet- 
ing unexpectedly  interpolated  between  the  regular  sessions  of 
the  American  Conference.  It  was  not  appointed  by  the  Con- 
ference which  preceded  it;  nor  did  it  appoint  the  Conference  or 
Conferences  which  followed  it.^ 

(4)  Mr.  Asbury  did  not  assume  the  personal  responsibility  of 
calling  the  Conference  in  his  official  capacity  as  general  assist- 
ant. Since  the  irregular  Delaware  Conference  of  1779,  and  the 
reconciliation  of  the  Virginia  Conference  in  1780,  and  particu- 
larly since  the  action  of  the  Conference  of  1782,  when  he  was 
unanimously  chosen  to  "preside  over  the  American  Conferences 
and  the  whole  work,"  Mr.  Asbury's  powers  as  general  assist- 
ant had  been  very  great;  and  had  he  chosen  to  exercise  them 
in  calling  the  whole  body  of  preachers  together,  there  is  little 
doubt  that  he  might  have  done  so  in  full  confidence  of  prompt 
and  implicit  obedience.  That  the  project  of  a  called  Conference 
originated  with  him  ample  evidence  has  been  adduced.  That 
there  were  delicacies  of  personal  relationship  and  official  po- 
sition which  made  it  improper  for  him  to  call  the  Conference  on 

1  P.  65  of  "  Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Conferences,  Annually  held  in  Amer- 
ica, From  1773  to  1794,  inclusive":  1795.  'In  the  "Minutes  of  the  Metho- 
dist Conferences,  Annually  held  in  America,  From  1773  to  1794,  inclusive," 
the  ])i  oceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference  are  recorded  under  one  series 
of  minute  questions  with  those  of  the  other  three  Conferences  of  the  year 
1785.   The  last  question  appoints  the  Conferences  for  1786.    See  p.  83. 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  79 


his  sole  personal  and  official  responsibility  seems  equally  clear. 
His  situation  and  motives  will  appear  under  tlie  next  head. 

(5)  In  the  context  of  the  passage  cited  above  from  Mr.  As- 
bury's  Journal,  he  says  that  after  Dr.  Coke's  sermon  at  Barratt's, 
Sunday,  November  14,  he  "  was  greatly  surprised  to  see  brother 
Whatcoat  assist  by  taking  the  cup  in  the  administration  of  the 
sacrament."   Immediately  follows  the  language:  "I  was  shocked 
when  first  informed  of  the  intention  of  these  my  brethren  in 
coming  to  this  country:  it  may  be  of  God.    My  answer  then 
was,  if  the  preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in 
the  capacity  I  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment." 
Dr.  Coke  confirms:  "  I  privately  opened  our  plan  to  Mr.  Asbury. 
He  expressed  considerable  doubts  concerning  it,  which  I  rather 
applaud  than  otherwise."    There  were  thus  two  delicacies  or 
difficulties  in  Asbury's  situation:  (a)  this  introduction  of  the 
sacraments  among  the  American  Methodists;  and  (b)  his  own 
ordination  as  a  joint  superintendent — the  joint  superintendent 
being  in  his  view  only  the  ordained  general  assistant— by  Mr. 
Wesley's  sole  appointment,  without  the  unanimous  choice  of  the 
preachers.    His  record  on  the  sacramental  question  is  well 
known  and  need  not  detain  us,  especially  as  the  acceptance  of 
the  ordination  proposed  carried  with  it  the  acceptance  of  the 
validity  of  the  sacraments  administered  by  those  in  the  orders 
bestowed  by  Mr.  Wesley  through  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vasey. 
Asbury  had  stoutly  withstood  and  conquered  the  Fluvanna 
brethren,  and  was  an  avowed  Episcopalian  in  principle  and 
practice.    He  had  known  Whatcoat  in  England,  and  was  fully 
aware  that  he  was  not  in  orders  then;  though  he  had  never  met 
Dr.  Coke  before,  he  was  doubtless  cognizant  that  he  was  a  cler- 
gyman of  the  Church  of  England.    He  was  "surprised,"  there- 
fore, at  Whatcoat's  taking  the  cup,  and  needed  time  for  investi- 
gation and  reflection,  when  informed  of  what  Mr.  Wesley  had 
done,  before  he  could  assimilate  this  ordination  with  the  prin- 
ciples he  had  long  cherished — just  as  Dr.  Coke  himself  simi- 
larly needed  and  took  time  when  Mr.  Wesley  first  proposed  to 
bestow  a  third  ordination  on  him.    Asbury's  second  trouble 
was  more  serious.    Dr.  Coke,  in  his  widely  different  situation, 
might  accept  appointment  and  ordination  as  a  joint  superin- 
tendent by  Mr.  Wesley's  sole  authority.    Mr.  Asbury  could  not. 
He  had  long  enjoyed  his  official  station  of  general  assistant,  out 


so 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


of  which  the  general  superintendent  was  a  development,  by 
election  o£  what  Mr.  Wesley  himself  had  styled  the  American 
Conference/  as  well  as  by  Mr.  Wesley's  concurrent  appointment. 
His  tenure  of  office  and  his  relation  to  the  American  Conference 
difPered  widely,  therefore,  from  that  of  Dr.  Coke,  a  total  stranger 
appearing  as  Mr.  Wesley's  "foreign  minister."  Asbury  could 
not  with  a  good  conscience  put  himself  in  the  proposed  position, 
accepting  the  proposed  tenure.  Hence  the  necessity  of  a  called 
Conference.    How  was  it  to  be  brought  about? 

There  was  to  be  a  Quarterly  Meeting  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  in 
Kent  county,  Delaware.'^  Mr.  Asbury  had  received  some  inti- 
mations of  Dr.  Coke's  arrival  in  America.  It  was  not  difficult 
to  "call  together  a  considerable  number  of  the  preachers"  at 
Barratt's  "  to  form  a  council."  "  They  were  accordingly  called," 
says  Coke,  "  and,  after  debate,  were  unanimously  of  opinion  that 
it  would  be  expedient  immediately  to  call  a  conference  of  all 
the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent."  "The  design  of  or- 
ganizing the  Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  [the 
episcopal  feature  evidently  impressed  Asbury]  Church,"  says 
Asbury,  "was  opened  to  the  preachers  present,  and  it  was 
agreed  to  call  a  general  conference."  The  Christmas  Confer- 
ence was  called,  not,  indeed,  by  a  Quarterly  Conference,  but 
by  a  body  of  preachers  assembled  for  Quarterly  Meeting  pur- 
poses, convened  as  a  special  "council,"  Mr.  Asbury  initiating, 
and  both  he  and  Dr.  Coke  concurring,  while  the  large  number 
of  laity  present— Dr.  Coke  says  there  were  five  or  six  hundred 
communicants  present  at  this  first  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  among  the  American  Methodists  by  their  own  minis- 
ters— took  no  part  in  the  proceedings.    When  we  shall  come  to 

1  Letter  to  America,  October  3,  1783:  Lee's  History,  pp.  85,  86.  ^Eze- 
kiel  Cooper,  who  was  present,  in  a  volume  published  thirty-five  years 
afterwards,  says:  "On  the  14th  of  the  same  month,  November,  they  [Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Whatcoat]  met  Mr.  Asbury,  and  about  fifteen  of  the  American 
preachers,  at  a  Quarterly  Meeting  held  in  Barratt's  Chapel,  Kent  county, 
State  of  Delaware."— P.  104  of  the  Funeral  Discourse  of  Asbury,  enlarged: 
1819.  Ledmun,  Rise  of  Methodism  in  America,  ed.  1862,  p.  410,  says  that  this 
Quarterly  Meeting  was  "the  fifth  regular  fall  quarterly  meeting  held  in  the 
chapel,  at  which  the  semi-annual  change  took  place  among  the  preachers  la- 
boring in  the  Peninsula.  Most  of  the  preachers  were  present,  and  a  large  at- 
tendance of  the  laity."  Freeborn  Garrettson  also  testifies  that  he  went  with 
Dr.  Coke  "  to  a  quarterly  meeting  held  in  Kent  county,"  and  that  "  about 
fifteen  met  in  conference." — Bangs's  Life  of  Garrettson,  fifth  ed.,  p.  134. 


GEX£:SIS  OF  GEXKRAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  81 


considei"  whether  the  Christmas  Conference  possessed  any  of 
the  features  of  a  convention,  and,  if  possessing  such  features,  in 
what  sense  it  was  a  convention,  and  in  what  sense  it  was  not 
such  a  body,  reason  will  be  found  for  our  express  mention  of 
the  non-action  of  the  laity  at  this  point. 

This  we  judge  to  be  a  sufficiently  exhaustive  analysis  of  the 
evident  facts,  motives,  principles,  and  jjurposes  involved  in  the 
calling  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Further  than  the  calling  of 
the  body  we  do  not  intend  to  proceed  in  the  present  section,  and 
all  after  considerations  based  on  the  acts  and  records  of  the  body 
itself  are  for  the  present  excluded.  If  we  have  overlooked  any 
data  which  would  materially  modify  the  foregoing  analysis,  it  has 
been  unintentional.  Other  sources  have  been  searched— as  the 
Minutes  of  the  British  Conference  for  1784,  at  which  the  mis- 
sion of  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vasey  was  determined  on — without 
yielding  any  evidence  that  the  notion  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence had  any  being  before  it  was  born  of  the  brain  of  Asbury 
and  bodied  forth  in  the  action  of  the  "  council "  at  Barratt's.  We 
are  fully  aware  that  no  historical  writer  is  called  upon  to  prove 
a  negative,  as  the  four  negative  heads  of  the  analysis  given 
above  might  seem  to  imply;  but  when  such  an  historian  as  Abel 
Stevens  declares  that  the  Christmas  Conference  was  "held  at 
the  instance  of  "Wesley,"^  we  may  expect  pardon  for  taking  pains 
to  dislodge  so  baseless  an  error.  The  positive  proof  of  the  ac- 
tual method  of  the  calling  of  the  Conference  might  be  taken, 
indeed,  as  a  sufficient  exclusion  of  the  possible  alternatives  sug- 
gested by  a  knowledge  of  the  existing  historical  situation,  namely, 
that  the  Conference  might  have  been  called  (1)  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
(2)  by  Dr.  Coke,  acting  under  Mr.  Wesley's  instructions,  (3)  by 
the  existing  American  Conference,  or  (4)  by  Mr.  Asbury  in  his 
official  capacity.  This  is  x^ractically  what  has  been  done  above, 
though,  in  view  of  the  numerous  questions  that  have  been  or 
might  be  debated  in  this  connection,  it  has  been  thought  allow- 
able formally  to  embrace  the  negative  alternatives  in  the 
analysis  and  to  call  attention  to  the  absence  of  evidence  in 
these  several  directions.  A  much  fuller  and  more  vivid  back- 
ground of  the  ecclesiastical  situation  of  the  American  Metho- 
dists on  Coke's  arrival  might  have  been  furnished;  but,  so  far 
as  this  is  necessary,  it  will  be  supplied  later  in  this  narrative, 
1  History  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  iii.  11. 

6 


S2 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


and,  for  tlie  rest,  the  reader  must  be  satisfied  that  we  have  not 
written  in  ignorance  by  reference  to  other  writings  of  this  pen. 
Here,  once  for  all,  we  may  be  i)ermitted  to  point  out  that  in 
denying  the  appointment  of  the  Christmas  Conference  to  Mr. 
Wesley  or  Dr.  Coke  or  Mr.  Asbury  or  the  American  Conference, 
and  in  assigning  it  to  the  "  council "  at  Barvatt's,  there  is  no 
design  of  casting  any  shadow  upon  the  nature,  the  degree,  or 
the  legitimacy  of  the  authority  exercised  by  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, but  only,  by  accurately  and  historically  determining  the 
source  whence  it  sprang  into  being,  so  far  to  define  the  charac- 
ter of  the  body  itself.  That  its  great  powers  were  self-derived 
will  appear  sufficiently  at  a  later  stage  of  our  inquiry. 

Concerning  the  Conference  thus  originated  and  called,  the 
question  arises  whether  it  was  a  General  Conference  in  the 
sense  of  the  Discij^line,  i.  e.,  in  the  only  sense  which  the  term 
legally  bears.  If  so,  it  should  undoubtedly  stand  at  the  head 
of  the  series  of  the  general  legislatures  of  the  JMethodist  Epis- 
copal Church  and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the 
series  beginning  thus  in  1784  and  continuing  to  the  present 
time.  Of  this  question  an  historical  examination,  final,  if  we 
can  make  it  so,  will  be  made  in  the  following  sections  of  this 
series  of  papers.  But  it  is  too  early  in  this  historical  survey  to 
raise,  definitively,  the  question  of  the  legal  or  Disciplinary  status 
of  the  Christmas  Conference — its  historical  position  from  the 
standpoint  of  organic  Methodist  government  in  America.  Not 
until  we  shall  have  examined  the  acts  and  records  of  the  body, 
and  the  contemporaneous  reports  of  its  doings,  can  we  rightly 
raise  the  question,  whether  Abel  Stevens  weighs  his  words  when 
he  calls  the  Christmas  Conference  "  an  extraordinary  convention 
of  the  ministry,"  ^  or  whether  the  body  is  properly  denominated 
the  General  Conference  of  1784.  These  are  intricate  questions, 
and  we  must  postpone  their  definitive  consideration.  At  this 
stage  of  our  inquiry  we  can  only,  at  the  risk  of  a  little  repetition, 
sum  up  the  conclusions  derivable  from  our  survey  of  the  facts 
and  circumstances  of  the  call  of  the  body,  as  certified  by  con- 
temporary evidence,  namely: 

(1)  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  called  Conference,  un- 
expectedly intercalated  between  the  regular  sessions  of  the 
Americari  Conference  for  17S4  and  1785; 


1  History  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  iii.  11. 


GEXESIS  OF  GEXEnAL  AXD  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  83 


(2)  It  was  no  part  of  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan"  for  the  organiza- 
tion or  government  of  the  American  Methodist  Church; 

(3)  It  was  not  provided  for  by  the  American  Conference; 

(4)  Its  necessity  was  not  felt  by  Coke,  either  on  the  basis  of 
his  instructions  or  on  that  of  his  personal  or  ofScial  position; 

(5)  It  was  not  called  by  Asbury  individually  and  officially; 

(6)  It  was  called  by  a  council  of  preachers,  from  eleven  to 
fifteen  in  numbei-,  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  Delaware,  November  14, 
1784,  Asbury  and  Coke  concurring; 

(7)  Its  purpose  was  to  pass  oa  "  the  design  of  organizing  the 
Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal  Church,"  /.  c,  to 
take  action  on  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan,"  involving  a  decision  ui)on 
the  appointment  and  ordination  of  superintendents,  elders,  and 
deacons — some  of  them  already  made  and  some  of  them  yet  to 
be  made — and  the  acceijtauce  of  Mr.  Wesley's  provision  of  the 
sacraments  for  the  American  Methodists. 

On  this  last-mentioned  point,  if  we  consider  the  antecedent 
sacramental  controversy;  the  correspondence  of  the  Americans 
with  Mr.  AVesley;  his  Bristol  circular  letter;  his  liturgy,  con- 
taining forms,  founded  on  those  of  the  Church  of  England, 
for  the  ordination  of  superintendents,  elders,  and  deacons;  his 
ordiuations  with  the  attesting  parchments,  and  his  directions 
for  ordinations;  and  last  of  all,  the  express  words  of  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury,  dated  on  the  day  of  the  calling  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  we  suppose  it  will  not  be  questioned  that  that- 
Conference  was  called  to  take  action  on  Mr.  Wesley's  "plan" — 
the  appointments,  orders,  and  sacraments  which  he  had  provid- 
ed for  the  American  Church;  that  Mr.  Asbury  particularly  saw 
and  expressed  the  necessity  for  this  action;  and  that,  if  all  the 
elements  of  the  "plan"  were  accepted  and  approved,  it" would 
result  in  the  organization  of  an  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  on  this  continent. 

The  sentence  of  the  Bristol  circular  letter,  "They  [the  Amer- 
ican Methodists]  are  now  at  full  liberty,  simply  to  follow  the 
Scriptures  and  the  primitive  church,"  does  not  in  its  connection 
imply  more  or  other  than  that,  being  free  from  all  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical control  in  England,  the  Americans  could  now,  with- 
out schism,  receive  the  orders  and  sacraments  which  Mr.  Wes- 
ley, following  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  Church,  had 
provided,  thus  organizing  themselves  into  a  Church.    The  pre- 


84 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


ceding  sentence  is,  "As  our  American  brethren  are  now  totally 
disentangled,  both  from  the  state  and  the  English  hierarchy,  we 
dare  not  entangle  them  again,  either  with  the  one  or  the  other." 
The  two  sentences  are  part  of  Mr.  Wesley's  fourth  objection  to 
desiring  "the  English  bishops  to  ordaiu  part  of  our  preachers 
for  America,"  and  their  clear  import  is  that  without  breach  of 
civil  or  ecclesiastical  law  or  order,  the  Americans  could  now 
scripturally  and  according  to  pure,  primitive  precedent  accept 
Mr.  Wesley's  orders  and  sacraments.  Apart  from  these  deci- 
sive considerations  of  the  context,  the  language  is  entirely  too 
general  to  be  construed  as  directing  or  suggesting  the  calling 
of  such  a  body  as  the  Christmas  Conference,  evidently  unantic- 
ipated by  Dr.  Coke,  the  bearer  of  the  letter.  If  it  were  in  evi- 
dence that  Mr.  Wesley  anticipated  a  meeting  of  the  American 
preachers,  the  most  that  can  be  said  of  the  circular  letter  is  that 
it  contains  no  prohibition  from  Mr.  Wesley  of  such  a  gathering. 

No  further  question  is  raised  at  this  point,  unless  it  be  by 
Mr.  Asbury's  employment  of  the  words  "  general  conference." 
Naturally  they  would  be  taken  as  the  equivalent  of  Coke's 
phrase,  "  a  conference  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  con- 
tinent." In  this  sense  it  has  never  been  disputed  that  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  was  intended  to  be  general — a  gathering  of  all 
the  preachers.  Perhaps  no  one  would  attribute  to  these  words 
a  precise  legal  signification  be/ore  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas 
Conference,  no  matter  what  the  character  of  that  body  might 
prove  to  be.  An  examination  of  Asbury's  use  of  the  term  "  gen- 
eral conference  "  seems  to  confirm  its  wide,  general  meaning  in 
this  case.  Of  the  first  American  Conference  in  1773  he  says, 
"  Our  general  conference  began."  ^  Asbury's  employment  of 
even  legally  fixed  terms  is  sometimes  unique.  As  late  as  179bi, 
for  example,  he  says:  "Some  of  our  local  preachers  complain 
that  they  have  not  a  seat  in  the  general  annual  conference."* 
But  perhaps  the  most  decisive  passage  in  Asbury's  Journal  on 
his  view  as  to  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  General  Con- 
ference is  found  under  date  of  Thursday,  July  19,  1798.  Ke- 
ferring  to  some  accusations  of  James  O'Kelly's,  previous  to  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  he  says: 

It  was  talked  over  in  the  yearly  conference,  for  then  we  had  no  general 
conference  established.   .  .   .  There  was  no  peace  with  .Tames,  until  Doctor 

>  Journal,  i.  55,  ed.  1821.  'Ibid.,  ii.  213,  ed.  1821. 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  85 


Coke  took  the  matter  out  of  my  hands,  after  we  had  agreed  to  hold  a  general 
conference  [in  1792]  to  settle  the  dispute:  and  behold  when  the  general  con- 
ference by  a  majority  (which  he  called  for)  went  against  him,  he  treated  the 
general  conference  with  as  much  contempt,  almost,  as  he  had  treated  me.^ 

Here,  after  declaring  that  no  General  Conference  had  been 
established  before,  he  applies  the  term  three  times  in  a  precise 
sense  contrasted  with  the  previously  existing  government  of  the 
Church  to  the  General  Conference  of  1792.  "Then  we  had  no 
general  conference  established  ":  the  name  is  denied  to  any  pre- 
viously established  governing  body  of  the  Church,  while  in  the 
same  connection  it  is  at  once  thrice  applied  to  the  body  that  we 
know  met  in  1792.  In  1798,  when  this  entry  in  his  Journal  was 
made,  two  General  Conferences  had  certainly  been  held;  the 
term  had  had  legal  definition  in  the  Discipline  since  1792,  and 
Asbury  in  this  case  seems  to  discriminate  in  his  use  of  legal  lan- 
guage. Hence  it  would  be  premature,  to  say  the  least,  to  use 
his  language  of  November  14,  1784,  as  determining  in  advance 
and  of  itself  the  legal  character  and  status  of  the  Christmas 
Conference,  or  even  Asbury's  opinion  of  it.  Its  general  char- 
acter was  doubtless  very  prominent  in  his  mind,  and,  in  jotting 
down  his  daily  record,  he  may  have  lighted  on  a  form  of  words, 
very  naturally  expressive  of  this  feature,  which  subsequently  ac- 
quired a  technical  and  legal  force,  just  as  he  had  done  in  1773. 
Accordingly  we  leave  that  question  for  the  present  undecided.^ 

'Journal,  ii.  321,  ed.  1821.  ^The  difficulties  and  dangers  of  a  merely  verbal 
proof,  i.  e.,  one  based  upon  the  employment  of  particular  words,  especially 
when  we  have  any  reason  to  believe  that  the  terms  may  subsequently  have 
acquired  a  technical  meaning,  in  contrast  with  a  real  proof,  i.  e.,  one  based  upon 
an  historical  examination  of  the  facts  of  the  existing  situation,  when  the  ma- 
terials exist  for  arriving  at  those  facts,  may  be  further  illustrated  by  the  cir- 
cumstance that  Asbury  was  probably  familiar  with  the  application  of  the 
term  "general  Conference"  to  the  conferences  annually  held  by  Mr.  Wesley 
in  England.  For  in  the  text  of  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection, 
as  Believed  and  Taught  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley,  From  the  Year  1725 
to  th(?  Year  1765,"  as  inserted  in  the  Disciplines  of  1791  and  1792,  occurs  this 
language:  "To  cast  a  fuller  light  on  this  important  subject,  I  shall  lay  before 
the  reader  the  Minutes  of  several  of  our  general  Conferences  on  this  weighty, 
this  momentous  doctrine." — Discipline  of  1791,  p.  103;  of  1792,  p.  108.  See, 
also,  Discipline  of  1801,  p.  114 ;  of  1805,  p.  101 ;  and  of  1808,  p.  99.  This  is  evi- 
dently Mr.  Wesley's  language ;  but  it  should  be  added  that  in  the  texts  of  the 
Plain  Account  in  the  Disciplines  ori789  and  1790,  it  does  not  occur.  Whether 
fehe  omission  was  occasioned  by  the  insertion  of  some  hymns  in  these  edi- 
tions, omitted  in  the  later,  we  cannot  say.  Nor  are  the  means  at  hand  for  de- 
termining how  early  the  language  appeared  in  the  English  editions  of  the 
Plain  Account.  The  point  is  unimportant  save  as  an  illustration  of  the  pos- 
Eible  dangers  of  merely  verbal  proof. 


CHAPTEE  IX. 
The  Genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Confeeences. 

IL  Organization,  IMembeiiship,  and  Minutes  of  the  Cheistmas  Conference. 
The  net  results  of  our  historical  ihquiry  into  the  origin  of  the 
Christinas  Conference,  as  certified  by  contemporary  evidence, 
were  enumerated  in  the  last  chapter,  and  maybe  here  recapitu- 
lated as  follows:  (1)  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  called 
Conference,  unexpectedly  intercalated  between  the  regular  an- 
nual sessions  of  the  American  Conference  of  1784  and  1785; 
(2)  it  was  no  part  of  Mr.  Wesley's  plan  either  for  the  organi- 
zation or  the  government  of  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  that  government  continuing  to  rest,  after  the  Christmas 
Conference  as  before,  as  we  shall  presently  see  in  detail,  in  an 
annual  assembly  known  as  the  'Conference";  (3)  it  was  not 
provided  for  by  any  action  of  this  existing  American  Confer- 
ence; (4)  its  necessity  was  not  foreseen  by  Dr.  Coke,  either  on 
the  basis  of  his  instructions  from  Mr.  Wesley  or  on  that  of  his 
personal  or  official  position;  (5)  it  was  not  called  by  Mr.  Asbury 
acting  individually  and  officially;  (6)  it  was  called  by  a  council 
of  preachers,  assembled  for  Quarterly  Meeting  purposes,  but 
specially  convened  as  a  council,  at  Barratt's  Chapel,  Kent  county, 
Delaware,  Sunday,  November  14,  1784,  Asbury  and  Coke  both 
concurring;  (7)  its  purpose  was  to  pass  on  "the  design  of 
organizing  the  Methodists  into  an  Independent  Episcopal 
Church,"  or  to  take  action  on  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan,"  brought 
coucrHtely  to  the  notice  of  the  council  l)y  the  presence  of  a  joint 
superintendent  and  an  elder,  appointed,  ordained,  and  commis- 
sioned by  Mr.  Wesley — the  nature  and  finality  of  which  acts  on 
his  part  might  well  call  for  examination  by  the  Americans — by 
their  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and 
subsequently  of  baptism,  by  their  parchments  of  ordination,  by 
a  circular  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley  to  be  hereafter  more  particu- 
(86) 


GFXESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  87 


larly  noticed,  and  by  a  Sunday  Service  comjiiled  by  Mi*.  "Wesley 
and  brouglit  over  in  sheets  by  Dr.  Coke.  Thus  this  Council, 
according  to  strictly  contemporary  evidence,  did  not  attempt  to 
act  on  "Mr.  Wesley's  plan,"  nor  to  i:)ass  on  the  official  charac- 
ter or  acts  of  Dr.  Coke  and  his  associates,  nor  to  accept,  nor  yet 
to  organize,  a  government  or  a  Church,  but  only  "to  call  a  con- 
ference of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent,"  which 
possessed  inherent  and  rightful  power  to  act,  and  which,  when 
it  had  done  substantially  these  things,  as  we  shall  presently  see 
in  full  detail,  dissolved,  leaving  the  government  of  the  Church 
in  the  hands  of  the  annual  Conference,  still  subject,  as  before, 
to  an  oversight  and  direction  of  Mr.  AVesley. 

In  the  interval  between  the  call  and  the  meeting  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  /.  e.,  between  November  14  and  December  24, 
1784,  we  find  the  following  relevant  notices  in  Asbury's  Journal: 

Fridiiy  26  [Xoveinber].  I  observed  this  day  as  a  day  of  fasting  and 
prayer,  that  I  might  know  the  will  of  God  in  the  matter  that  is  shortly  to 
come  before  our  conference;  the  preachers  and  people  seem  to  be  much 
pleased  with  the  projected  plan;  I  myself  am  led  to  think  it  is  of  the  Lord. 
I  am  not  tickled  with  the  honor  to  be  gained — I  see  danger  in  the  way. — My 
soul  waits  upon  God.  O  that  he  may  lead  us  in  the  way  we  should  go!  Part 
of  my  time  is,  and  must  necessarily  be,  taken  up  witli  preparing  for  the  con- 
ference.' 

Observe:  "projected  plan"  —  the  "Independent  Episcopal 
Church,"  to  use  Asbury's  own  definite  and  vivid  phrase  of  No- 
vember 14,  still  sleeps  in  the  womb  of  the  future,  and  is  yet  to 
be  called  thence  by  a  sovereign  voice;  "our  conference,"  the 
Christmas  Conference,  is  shortly  to  become,  in  an  unshared  and 
unique  sense,  the  maker  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism  and 
its  government,  legitimating  by  its  free  and  full  and  adequate 
consent  its  episcopacy,  its  orders,  and  its  sacraments,  as  emanat- 
ing from  Mr.  Wesley  himself. 

Tuesday,  November  30,  Mr.  Asbury  "  had  an  interesting  con- 
versation "  with  a  clergyman  "on  the  subject  of  the  Episcopal 
mode  of  church-government,"  now  so  deeply  engrossing  his  at- 
tention; and  Saturday,  December  IS,  makes  this  final  entry: 

Saturday  18  [December].  Spen.  the  day  at  Perry  Hall,  partly  in  jirepar- 
ing  for  conference.  .  .  .  Contiuuod  at  Ton  y  Hail  until  Friday  the  twenty- 
fourth.    We  then  rode  to  Baltimore,  wliere  wo  met  a  few  preachers.^ 

1  Edition,  1S21.  i.  377. 

sjouiuiil,  ed.  l!i21,  1.  377;  the  reuiaiuder  of  this  entry  is  reserved  for  citation  else- 
where. 


88 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


Coke  had  reached  Perry  Hall,  the  palatial  mansion  of  Mr. 
Gough,  the  day  before,  and  Whateoat  followed  the  day  after: 
here,  in  comfort  and  with  all  necessary  conveniences,  Coke  and 
Asbury  and  Whateoat — the  three  English  bishops  of  our  Meth- 
odism— with  Vasey,  Mr.  Wesley's  other  elder,  and  Black,  from 
Nova  Scotia,  spent  a  delightful  week  immediately  preceding 
the  convening  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  revising  the  Large 
Minutes  (which  in  1781  and  again  in  1784  had  been  accepted  as 
binding  by  the  American  Conference,  and  which  were  to  be 
taken  as  the  basis  of  the  First  Discipline),  and  in  making  other 
preparations  for  the  great  task  of  Church-making  that  lay  im- 
mediately before  them. 

Tlie  Christmas  Conference  convened  in  Lovely  Lane  Chapel, 
Baltimore,  at  10  A.M.  Friday,  December  24,  1784.^  There  were 
but  few  preachers  present  on  the  first  day,  as  we  have  seen  on 
the  testimony  of  Asbury  cited  above.  But  the  number  was  sub- 
sequently largely  increased.  Coke  writes,  "  We  had  near  sixty 
of  them  present.  The  whole  number  is  81."  ^  The  Minutes  of 
1784,  the  last  Conference  preceding  the  organization  of  the 
Methodists  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  show  eighty -three 
preachers  receiving  appointments;^  but  of  these  eighty-three, 
notice  of  the  decease  of  Caleb  Pedicord  and  George  Mair  ap- 
pears in  the  Minutes  of  1785,*  which  include  the  minute  busi- 
ness of  the  Christmas  Conference  recorded  in  one  series  of  ques- 
tions with  the  other  Conferences  of  that  year.  This  satisfacto- 
rily verifies  Coke's  exactness.  The  membership  thus  consisted 
of  about  three-fourths  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  con- 
tinent. Jesse  Lee,  who  was  among  those  who  failed  to  receive 
timely  notice,  and  who  was  consequently  not  present,  complains 
of  Freeborn  Garrettson's  discharge  of  his  duty  as  the  messen- 
ger of  the  council  at  Barratt's: 

Mr.  Freeborn  Garrettson  [says  he]  undertook  to  travel  to  the  south,  in  or- 
der to  give  notice  to  all  the  travelling  preachers  of  this  intended  meeting.  But 
being  fond  of  i>refiching  by  the  way,  and  thinking  he  could  do  the  business  by 
writing,  he  did  not  give  timely  notice  to  the  preachers  who  were  in  the  extrem- 
ities of  the  work ;  and  of  course  several  of  them  were  not  at  that  conference.' 

iFor  Uie  evidence  for  this  date  as  a<:ainst  that  appearing  on  the  title-papo  of  the 
Minutes  or  Discipline  issued  by  this  Conference,  see  Tigert's  Constitutional  History,  p.  195. 

sjourn.-il,  Arminian  Magazine,  rhiladelphia,  June,  1789,  pp.290,  291;  The  Methodist 
Review,  September,  1896,  p.  13;  Tigert's  edition  of  Coke's  Journal,  p.  13. 

3  Pp.  66-69  of  "Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Conferences,  Annually  held  in  America,  from 
1773  to  1794,  inclusive,"  Philadelphia,  1795.   *Ibid.,  p.  70. 

6A  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  ISIO,  pp.  93,  94. 


GENESIS  OF  GEXEItAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  89 


There  is  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  follow- 
ing twenty-nine  persons  at  the  Christmas  Conference;  Francis 
Asbury,  William  Black,  Caleb  Boyer,  Le  Eoy  Cole,  Thomas 
Coke,  James  O.  Cromwell,  John  Dickins,  Edward  Dromgoole, 
Ira  Ellis,  Keuben  Ellis,  Joseph  Everett,  Jonathan  Forrest, 
Freeborn  Garrettson,  William  Gill,  William  Glendenniug,  Lem- 
uel Green,  John  Haggerty,  Richard  Ivey,  Jeremiah  Lambert, 
James  O'Kelly,  William  Phcebus,  Ignatius  Pigman,  Francis 
Poythress,  Nelson  Reed,  John  Smith,  Thomas  Vasey,  Thomas 
Ware,  William  Watters,  and  Richard  Whatcoat.  The  Rev. 
John  Lednum  nearly  forty  years  ago  identified  a  list  of  twenty- 
one  names  of  ministers  who  "  were  certainly  in  attendance."  ^ 
Dr.  John  Atkinson  has  since  added  eight  names  to  the  list,  and 
drawn  out  at  length  the  evidence  for  the  presence  of  the  whole 
twenty-nine.- 

As  to  the  organization  of  the  Conference  we  have  the  evi- 
dence of  the  title-page  of  the  Discipliue  of  1167,  "arranged" 
and  "methodized"  by  Asbury  himself,  that  "The  Reverend 
Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  and  the  Reverend  Francis  Asbury,  pre- 
sided." *  Jesse  Lee,  whose  careful  accuracy  is  unsurpassed  by 
any  subsequent  historian,  declares  that  Thomas  Coke  and  Fran- 
cis Asbury  presided.*  Neither  Coke  nor  Asbury  mentions  the 
point  in  his  contemporary  journal;  nor  elsewhere,  so  far  as  we 
have  been  able  to  discover.  Whether  they  presided  conjointly 
or  alternately  is  a  point  on  which  there  seems  to  be  no  evidence. 
Dr.  John  Pearson  declares  that  "  as  Mi*.  Wesley's  representative 
Dr.  Coke  took  the  chair,  and  read  the  terse  and  comprehensive 
letter  of  Mr.  Wesley,"  but  he  cites  no  contemporary  or  early 
source  for  the  statement,  which  seems  to  be  his  inference  from 
the  known  circumstances.*    Long  years  afterwards  Asbury 

1  Rise  of  Methodism  in  America,  ed.  1862,  p.  413.  Tlie  first  edition  of 
Lednum's  History  was  issued  in  18-50. 

2  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism,  1884,  pp.  36-49.  The  orig- 
inal sources  whence  this  evidence  is  taken  are  largely,  if  not  mostly,  accessible 
to  the  present  writer;  but  it  would  needlessly  encumber  these  pages  to  cite  it. 

*But  two  copies  of  this  Discipline  are  known  to  be  in  existence,  one  the 
property  of  Mr.  R.  T.  Miller,  of  Covington,  Ky.,  and  the  other  in  the  li- 
brary of  the  Drew  Theological  Seminary.  We  have  before  us,  besides  Mr. 
Miller's  original,  three  different  reprints:  one  of  Ketcham's  fifty,  No.  47; 
Nutter's,  1890;  and  Ingham's. 

<Short  History  of  the  IVfetliO'lists,  ISIO,  p.  94. 

*  Methodist  Review  (New  York),  March,  1S9G,  p.  265. 


90 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


wrote  to  Joseph  Benson  concerniug  the  Annual  Conferences, 
"It  was  also  my  pleasure,  when  present,  alwa^^s  to  give  Dr. 
Coke  the  president's  chair."  ^  Considering  Coke's  position  as 
an  already  ordained  "joint  superintendent"  with  credentials 
from  Mr.  Wesley,  to  which  position  Asbury  had  not  yet  been 
elected  and  ordained,  and  bis  character  as  Mr.  Wesley's  agent 
for  the  impartation  of  orders  and  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
it  is  not  improbable  that  he  opened  the  Conference  and  gave  in- 
itial direction  to  its  business. 

We  have  found  nowhere  the  slightest  trace  of  the  election  of 
any  person  to  serve  as  secretary  of  the  body.  Such  an  oflScer 
seems  to  have  been  unknown  in  the  early  Methodist  Confer- 
ences. From  the  first  British  Conference  in  1714  to  the  last 
held  by  Mr.  Wesley  in  1790,  the  Minutes,  as  far  as  we  can  dis- 
cover, contain  no  record  of  the  appointment,  election,  or  service 
of  such  an  officer.  From  1791  to  1896  the  secretary's  signature, 
with  the  president's,  is  appended  to  the  Minutes  annually,  the 
succession  of  secretaries  being  Thomas  Coke  (1791-95,  1799, 
1801-i  1806-8,  1810-13);  Samuel  Bradburn  (1796-98,  1800); 
Joseph  Benson  (1805, 1809);  Jabez  Bunting  (1814-19, 1824-27), 
who  may  be  said  to  have  been  the  first  permanent  successor  of 
Dr.  Coke  in  the  secretary's  office;  G.  Marsden  (1820);  Kobert 
Newton  (1821-23,  1828-31,  1834-39,  1842-47),  who  must  be  re- 
garded as  the  third  permanent  secretary;  Edmund  Grindrod 
(1832,  1833);  John  Hannah  (1840,  1841,  1849,  1850,  1854-58): 
Joseph  Fowler  (1848);  John  Farrar  (1851-53,  1859-69);  J.  H. 
James  (1870);  L.  H.  Wiseman  (1871);  George  T.  Perks  (1872); 
Gervase  Smith  (1873,  1874);  Henry  W.  AVilliams  (1875-77);  M. 
C.  Osborne  (1878-80);  Robert  N.  Young  (1881-85);  David  J. 
Waller  (1886-94);  and  M.  Hartley  (1895,  1896), 

The  business  throughout  Mr.  Wesley's  lifetime  presidency 
from  1744  to  1790  is  recorded  in  the  question  and  answer  form: 
these  questions  and  answers  are  the  "  Minutes  of  the  Methodist 
Conferences."  There  are  no  minutes  in  our  modern  sense,  from 
which  may  be  gathered  the  hours  of  meeting  and  adjournment, 
the  day  of  the  Conference  session  on  which  any  particular  bus- 
iness was  done,  or  the  general  order  in  which  the  business  was 
brought  forward,  or  the  resolutions,  motions,  or  other  parlia- 
mentary steps  by  which  action  was  matured  and  concluded,  etc. 


-  Taiue'a  McKendree,  ii.  294. 


GKNESrS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES. 


91 


The  couclusion  reached,  whether  doctrinal  or  governmeutal,  the 
things  done  and  to  be  done,  were  entered  briefly  un(I(>r  a  stand- 
ing or  newly-devised  minute  question,  and,  so  far  as  api)ears 
from  the  extant  records,  the  early  Methodists  felt  the  need  of, 
and  made,  no  other  record.  In  the  absence  of  evidence,  we  are 
reduced  to  silence  or  more  or  less  probable  conjecture  as  to  how 
and  by  whom  this  simple  record  was  kept.  It  appears  to  us  not 
unlikely  that  Mr.  Wesley  in  the  president's  chair  jotied  down 
these  questions  and  answers — as  Bishop  Keener  continues  to 
do  on  his  blanks  to  this  day,  returning  his  report  to  the  book 
editor's  office — probably  reading  them  over  to  the  Conference  at 
the  close  for  the  sake  of  accuracy;  and  that  was  the  end  of  the 
matter  until  the  preachers  received  the  printed  minutes  from 
Mr.  AVesley's  press  where  they  had  been  published  under  his 
own  eye. 

Such  had  been  the  uninterrupted  custom  in  England  from 
the  time  of  the  first  Conference  until  the  meeting  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  and  for  some  years  afterwards.  In  America,  as 
late  as  1796,  the  General  Conference  still  adhered  to  the  ques- 
tion and  answer  form  of  transacting  and  recording  its  business; 
the  Minutes  proper  for  179G,  after  the  record  of  two  addresses 
prefixed,  open  abruptly  with  "  Question  1.  Are  there  any  direc- 
tions to  be  given  concerning  the  yearly  conferences?"  without 
note  of  time,  place,  members,  or  ofiicers,  and  continue  without 
any  parliamentary  notice  of  presidency,  sittiugs  or  adjourn- 
ment, or  other  mark  of  time,  without  any  record  of  committees, 
resolutions,  or  motions,  through  to  "  Question  22.  "When  and 
where  shall  our  next  General  Conference  be  held?  "  TLun-e  are 
no  signatures  of  presidents  or  secretary,  and,  so  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  discover,  there  is  no  trace  of  the  election  or  service 
of  such  an  ofiicer  as  a  secretary  in  the  entire  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1796.  Before  the  two  addresses  men- 
tioned above,  occurs  a  formal  caption  mentioning  the  time  of 
meeting  and  the  presidents  of  the  Conference,  but  giving  no 
hint  of  a  secretary.^  In  1800  the  minutes  are  first  denominat- 
ed a  Journal,  the  daily  sessions  of  the  Conference  are  for  the 
first  time  noted,  Nicholas  Snethen  is  elected  secretary,  and  his 
signature  appears  with  Coke's  at  the  end  of  the  proceedings.^ 


1  General  Conference  Journals,  i.  7-29. 
'Ibid.,  i.  31-46. 


92 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


Of  the  General  Conference  of  1792  no  official  minutes  are  ex- 
tant, "  The  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  1792,"  says 
Dr.  McClintock,  the  editor  of  the  first  published  collected  Jour- 
nals, "  were  never  printed  to  my  knowledge,  nor  can  I  find  the 
original  copy  "  ^ — probably  because  none  was  ever  made.  For 
here  steps  to  the  front  tbe  tried  and  trusty  Jesse  Lee,  the  earli- 
est historian  of  Methodism  whose  work  attained  general  recog- 
nition,^ who  constantly  aims  at  the  nicest  accuracy  and  the  ut- 
most attainable  exactness  on  points  of  this  kind.    Says  Lee: 

On  the  first  day  of  November,  1792,  the  first  regular  general  conference 
began  in  Baltimore.  .  .  .  At  that  general  conference  we  revised  the  form 
of  discipUne,  and  made  several  alterations.  The  proceedings  of  that  confer- 
ence were  not  i)ublished  in  separate  minutes,  but  the  alterations  were  en- 
tered at  their  proper  place?,  and  published  in  the  next  edition  of  the  form 
of  discipline,  which  was  the  eighth  edition.'' 

Here,  though  Lee  at  first  says  no  more  than  that  the  pro- 
ceedings had  not  been  published  as  separate  minutes — as  the 
Minutes  of  the  Annual  Conferences  had  been  since  1785 — the 
latter  part  of  his  sentence  seems  to  imply  that  no  separate  and 
distinct  record  was  made  at  the  time,  "but  the  alterations  ivere 
ento-ed  at  their  proper  places"  in  the  Form  of  Discipline,  and 
thus  published  in  the  next  edition  thereof.  Asbury  also  de- 
clares, "The  general  conference  went  through  the  Discipline, 
Articles  of  Faith,"  etc.*  The  title-page  of  this  Discipline, 
which  lies  before  us,  is,  "The  Doctrines  and  Discipline 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  Eevised  and 
Approved  at  the  General  Conference  held  at  Baltimore,  in 

1  General  Conference  Journals,  i.  4. 

^  It  is  a  mistake,  however,  which  we  believe  we  are  the  first  to  detect  and 
correct,  to  sa_v  that  Je.=se  Lee's  History  was  the  earliest.  We  have  in  our 
possession  "A  Comprehensive  History  of  American  Methodism,"  appended 
to  a  Life  of  John  Wesley,  whose  Preface  bears  date  "Baltimore,  June  13, 
1807."  Lee's  Preface  is  dated  "  Petersburg,  Virginia,  October  28, 1809."  Nor 
is  this  Life  of  Wesley  mentioned  in  any  of  the  attempted  complete  lists  that 
we  have  seen. 

3  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  1810,  p.  176  et  seq.  The  first  sentence 
of  the  above  quotation  is  on  p.  176:  the  only  copy  we  have  now  at  hand, 
having  been  the  property  of  Bishop  McTyeire  when  he  wrote  his  History,  is 
so  mutilated  by  clipping  that  we  cannot  give  the  exact  page  of  the  remain- 
der. Anyone  wishing  to  verify,  however,  will  meet  no  difticulty  in  finding 
the  passage. 

<  Journal,  ed.  1821,  ii.  147. 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  COS FF.RENCES. 


93 


the  State  of  Maryland,  in  November,  1792:  in  which  Thomas 
Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  presided."  Though  this  was  the 
eighth  edition,  there  having  been  a  new  Discipline  issued  every 
year  since  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Confei'ence,  this  vras 
the  first  Methodist  Discipline  that  bore  on  its  title-page  the 
approval  of  a  body  denominated  "the  General  Conference." 
This  fact  is  not  without  significance,  esjoecially  when  taken  in 
connection  with  the  acciirate  and  pregnant  language  of  Jesse 
Lee,  who  did  not  insert  the  term  "  regular "  as  mere  ballast, 
"  On  the  first  day  of  November,  1792,  the  first  regular  general 
conference  began  in  Baltimore."  But  this  iwint  will  come  up 
for  fuller  consideration  in  another  connection,  when  we  shall 
make  some  attempt  at  a  more  precise  determination  of  the  sense 
in  which  Jesse  Lee  employed  tliis  legal-looking  woi'd  "regular." 

It  is  not  necessary  for  our  present  purpose  to  determine  the 
exact  time  of  the  introduction  of  secretaries  into  the  Annual 
Conferences,  though  it  not  improbably  shortly  preceded  or  fol- 
lowed the  introduction  of  that  officer  into  the  General  Confei-- 
ence  of  1800^ — the  "third  regular  General  Conference,"  as  Lee 
(p.  264)  calls  it.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  existence  of  this 
officer  in  the  Conferences  of  the  people  called  Methodists  on  the 
continent  of  America  in  their  Minutes  from  1773  to  1794,  first 
collected  and  published  in  a  single  volume  in  1795,  nor,  so  far  as 
our  search  has  revealed,  in  the  writings  of  Lee,  Asbury,  and  other 
of  their  contemporaries.  Moreover,  so  far  as  we  can  appeal  from 
printed  to  manuscript  sources,  the  manuscript  journal  of  the 
Eev.  Philip  Gatch,  which  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Kev.  Leroy  M. 
Lee,  D.D.,  when  he  wrote  his  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  shows,  if  proof 
is  necessary,  that  the  original  records  of  the  American  Con- 
ferences were  kept,  as  we  might  well  suppose,  in  the  simple 

^  Since  the  preceding  was  written,  we  find,  on  examining  the  printed  ]\Iin- 
utes  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference  for  189(j,  that  for  tlie  sessions  from 
the  first  in  1787  to  1798,  the  entry  concerning  the  secretary  is  "  Not  known," 
while  Jesse  Lee  was  the  first  in  1799.  This  is  unexpected  confirmation  of 
the  conjecture  of  the  text,  based  on  the  probability  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1800  simply  imitated  an  example  set  shortly  before  by  the  Annual 
Conferences — which  turns  out  to  have  been  the  case,  at  least  so  far  as  South 
Carolina  was  concerned — or,  if  the  General  Conference  originated  the  cus- 
tom, its  example  would  be  speedily  followed  in  the  Annual  Conferences. 
The  General  Conference  of  1800  (Journal  i.  43),  on  motion  of  Bishop  Asbury, 
first  ordered  the  proceedings  of  Annual  Conferences  to  be  kept  by  a  secre- 
tary, and  this  record  sent  to  the  General  Conference. 


94 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


question  and  answer  form  universal  in  England.  This  contem- 
porary manuscript  journal  preserves  Minutes,  in  the  question 
and  answer  form,  of  the  American  Conferences  of  1777  and  1779, 
which  are  chiefly  valuable,  of  course,  because  they  include  a 
record  which  has  been  stricken  or  edited  out  of  the  printed  Min- 
utes. But  they  are  also  valuable  as  higher  evidence  on  the  point 
in  question,  confirming  the  oldest  printed  Minutes.^  Thus  up 
to  the  time  of  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  until 
long  afterwards,  this  simple  question  and  answer  form  of  record- 
ing Conference  business  was  universal  in  England  and  America, 
and,  indeed,  has  been  c  mtinued  to  this  day  in  the  Minutes  of 
the  Wesleyan  Conference  in  EnglaucI,  in  the  business  of  our 
own  Annual  Conferences,  though  with  additions,  and  through 
all  the  editions  of  our  Book  of  Discipline. 

Now  it  so  happens  that  with  respect  to  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference American  Methodism  enjoys  the  extraordinary,  if  not 
unique,  advantage  of  possessing,  and  of  having  always  pos- 
sessed, since  the  year  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference, 
two  printed  records  of  the  business  done  in  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, both  of  them,  in  formal  titles,  called  "Minutes,"  and 
both  of  them  in  this  then  universally  current  question  and  an- 
swer form.  What  more  could  one  ask?  What  more  could  be 
r'  tioually  expected?  Are  we  not,  concerning  the  records  of  this 
body,  singularly  fortunate?  And  yet  from  time  to  time  a  wail 
goes  up  concerning  the  "  lost  minutes  "  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, or  a  confident  hope  is  expressed  that  they  may  yet  be 
recovered,  or  a  shout  is  raised  over  the  announcement  of  their 
actual  discovery.  Recover — discover— what?  We  have  entered 
on  this  wide  investigation  of  the  forms  of  Conference  organiza- 
tion, business,  and  record  in  England  and  America,  and,  with  the 
patient  indulgence  of  the  reader,  shall  detain  him  on  the  point  a 
little  longer,  to  show  that  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
Christmas  Conference  ever  put  to  record  any  form  of  "  Minutes  " 
other  than  those  which  have  been  transmitted  to  us,^  and  that 
consequently  nothing  has  been  lost  and  nothing  is  to  be  found. 

Let  us  now  sum  up  the  state  of  the  case.  In  England,  until 
the  death  of  Wesley  in  1791,  there  is  no  record  in  the  Minutes 

iDr.  L.  M.  Lee'fi  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  78-81. 

2  A  full  dfscription  and  examination  of  the  two  records,  or  "  Minutes,"  of 
the  Christniiis  Conlerence  will  fall  naturally  a  little  later  in  our  narrative. 


GENKSIS  OF  GESEliAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFEUENCES. 


95 


o£  the  eleciion  or  service  of  a  secretary  of  the  Conference. 
Moreover,  these  Minutes  were  kept  in  the  simple  question  and 
answer  form,  without  notice  of  the  parliamentary  processes  by 
which  the  body  was  organized  or  conclusions  were  formulated 
and  reached,  which,  indeed,  continues  substantially  in  Eiigland 
to  this  day.  In  America  there  is  no  record  of  the  existence  of 
a  secretary  of  tbe  General  Conference  until  1800;  and  this  body 
was  still  adhering  to  the  question  and  answer  form  of  transact- 
ing and  recording  its  business  as  late  as  1796 — twelve  years 
after  the  Christmas  Conference.  The  Annual  Conferences,  so 
'far  as  appears,  had  no  such  recording  officer  until  long  after  the 
Christmas  Conference,  and  in  these  bodies,  as  we  have  uniform 
evidence,  both  [  rinted  and  manuscript,  from  the  very  beginning 
until  a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  Christmas  Conference, 
the  minutes  were  kept  in  the  question  and  answer  form,  with- 
out other  record.  In  1792,  in  "the  first  regular  General  Con- 
ference," "the  alterations  were  entered  in  their  proper  places" 
in  the  Form  of  Discipline,  and  thus  published.  This,  as  we 
shall  immediately  see,  was  doubtless  in  imitation  of  the  exam- 
ple previously  set  by  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  thus,  for 
the  same  reasons,  we  have  no  such  separate  record  of  either 
body  as  that  of  1796.  In  1784,  Coke  and  Asbury,  during  the 
week  before  the  opening  of  the  Conference  spent  at  Perry  Hall, 
prepared,  assisted  by  the  friendly  counsel  and  aid  of  the  other 
guests,  a  revision  of  the  "  rules  or  minutes,"  that  is,  a  draft  of 
■questions  and  answers,  based  on  the  current  edition  of  the 
Large  Minutes,  freely  curtailed  or  supplemented,  if  we  may 
judge  from  the  final  form  adopted,^  to  be  submitted  to  the  ap- 
proaching Conference.  That  the  Conference  altered  largely 
the  draft  submitted  by  its  presidents,  we  have  no  reason  to 
suppose.  The  "conversations" — note  the  word— on  the  revi- 
sion of  Discipline  did  not  begin  until  Monday  morning,  Decem- 
ber 27,  and  continuing  but  a  week,  were  interrupted  by  the 
elections  of  the  elders  and  deacons,  and  the  numerous  preach- 

'For  a  detailed  comparison  throutrhont  of  the  Minutes  of  the  Christmas 
Conference  wlujse  title  runs  "  Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  The 
Rev.  Thomas  Cf)ke,  LL.D.,  The  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  and  Others,"  etc.,  with 
the  Large  Minutes,  the  title  of  whose  several  editions  runs  in  similar  strain, 
"  ^Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Rev.  Mr.  John  and  Charles 
Wesley,  and  Others,"  see  Robert  Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline,  l.'iJ4, 
pp.  25-79. 


96 


THE  MAKIXG  OF  METHODISM. 


ing  and  ordination  services.  Coke  preached  every  day  at  noon, 
"except  on  the  Sundays  and  other  ordination  days,  when  the 
service  began  at  ten  o'clock,  it  generally  lasting  on  those  occa- 
sions four  hours."  So  far  as  we  have  discovered  in  a  careful 
perusal  of  Jesse  Lee's  entire  History,  it  contains  no  hint  of  any 
"lost"  or  "missing"  records  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  It 
is  improbable  to  the  last  degree,  amounting  to  moral  certainty, 
that  any  "  minutes "  in  the  modern  parliamentary  sense  were 
ever  kept.  If  Coke  did  not  use  the  manuscript  draft  prepared 
by  himself  and  Asbury  at  Perry  Hall  the  week  before,  as  finally 
adopted  by  the  Conference,  for  printing  his  "Minutes"  (the 
first  Discipline) — which  he  put  to  the  press  in  Philadelphia, 
between  January  8  and  January  19,  1785,  within  about  two 
weeks  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference  ^ — surely  only  the 
most  captious  objector  could  assert  with  the  smallest  degree 
of  probability  that  these  "  Minutes,"  so  promptly  published  by 
one  of  the  presidents  of  the  Conference,  did  not  conform  with 
precision  to  the  actual  doings  of  the  body.  Together  with  the 
pamphlet  of  annual  minutes,  first  published  later  in  this  year, 
and  subsequently  incorporated  in  the  volume  of  Minutes  first 
collected  and  published  in  1795,^  which  we  have  before  us,  these 
"Minutes"  or  " Disciialiue "  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  con- 
tain, there  is  every  reason  to  suppose,  all  the  proceedings  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  that  were  ever  ofiicially  put  to  record. 
In  a  most  unusual  degree  these  two  forms  of  "Minutes,"  par- 
ticularly the  publication  of  Coke's  at  Philadelphia,  in  January, 
1785,  "composing  a  Form  of  Discipline,"  fulfill  the  most  rigid 
conditions  of  official  and  contemporary  records.  In  the  present 
state  of  the  evidence  it  is  entirely  safe  to  say  that  no  historical 
inquirer  need  give  himself  the  smallest  concern  about  any  sup- 
posed "  lost  minutes  "  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  Only  the 
actual  production  of  a  hitherto  unknown  record  of  the  body,  of 
whose  existence  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof  or  presumption, 
or  direct  contemporary,  or  approximately  contemporary,  testi- 
mony ad  rem  can  shake  the  mass  of  presumptions  and  practi- 
cally decisive  evidence  to  the  contrary.  The  probability  of  the 
production  of  such  record  or  evidence,  after  an  interval  of  one 

^See  Coke's  Journal,  January  8-19,  and  January  22,  1785,  Tigert's  ed.,  pp. 
15,  16.    Cf.  Bishop  Emory's  Defense  of  our  Fathers,  p.  70. 
2 Lee's  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  89,  118. 


GKXESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  97 


hundred  and  thirteen  years,  each  reader  may  judge  for  himself. 
Until  they  are  produced,  the  historian  may  safely  rest  in  the 
conclusion  that  in  the  two  records  called  "  Minutes  " — pai-ticu- 
larly  in  the  one  which  became  the  First  Discipline  of  the  Church, 
for  the  earliest  printed  form  of  the  other  with  which  we  are  ac- 
quainted dates  ten  years  later,^  though  it  was  first  printed  in 
1785  —  we  have  the  ofiicial,  contemporaneous  reports  of  the 
transactions  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  that  there  is  no 
prospect  that  the  revelations  of  the  future  will  put  us  in  posses- 
sion of  any  other  ofiicial,  contemporary  record  of  that  historic 
body.  Except  for  the  prevalent  notion,  without  historical  foun- 
dation, to  the  contrary,  it  might  not  have  been  necessary  to  enter 
upon  this  investigation.  But  in  addition  to  the  entire  absence 
of  evidence  for  the  existence  of  a  missing  record,  we  have  in 
this  instance  many  converging  lines  of  evidence,  based  both 
upon  a  general  and  quite  complete  and  exact  knowledge  of  the 
practices  of  Methodist  Conferences  in  those  times,  and  also 
upon  the  circumstances  attending  the  j)reparation  for  the 
Christmas  Conference  and  the  publication  of  its  transactions, 
that  none  such  was  made;  and,  if  not  made,  of  course,  not  lost. 

>  How  far  this  modides  the  evidence  derivable  from  this  record  will  later 
come  under  review. 

Note. — Further  investigations,  with  some  new  materials,  have  but  con- 
firmed tlae  doubts  indicated  in  the  text  and  footnote  above.  It  is  highly 
improbable  that  the  original  printed  minutes  of  1785  contained  a  record  of 
the  Christmas  Conference.  The  assertion  (p.  94)  that  we  have  had  more 
than  one  record  "since  the  year  of  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference,"  is 
not  warranted  by  the  evidence.  See  Chapters  X.  and  XIII. 
7 


CHAPTEE  X. 
The  Genesis  op  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences. 

III.  Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 
Historical  inquiry  into  the  character  and  proceedings  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  must  be  based  primarily  upon  contem- 
poi-aneous,  or  approximately  contemporaneous,  sources.  These 
sources  are  divisible  into  two  classes,  Public  and  Private.  The 
Public  embrace  two  or,  at  most,  three  records.    In  the  Public 
Contemporaneous  Sources,  the  first  place  must  be  assigned  to 
the  "Minutes"  or  "Discipline,"  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
(?■.  e.,  "Minutes"  .  .  .  " Composing  a  Form  of  Discipline "  i), 
put  to  the  pi-ess,  as  we  have  seen,  by  Thomas  Coke,  one  of  the 
presidents  of  the  Conference,  at  Philadelphia,  between  Januarv 
8  and  January  19,  1785,  immediately  upon  the  adjournment  of 
the  Conference.^    This  document,  being  of  official  and  strictly 
contemporaneous  character,  is  the  highest  historical  evidence 
we  have  of  the  nature  and  transactions  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence.   With  it  must  be  considered  the  Sunday  Service  compiled 
by  Mr.  Wesley  and  brought  over  by  Dr.  Coke.    The  second 
place  must  be  given  to  the  earliest  volume  of  what  we  now  call 
the  General  Minutes,  whose  preface  bears  date.  May,  1794,  and 
which  was  published  in  1795.    It  embraces  the  proceedings  of 
all  the  Conferences  held  from  1773  to  1794,  including  the 
Christmas  Conference.    To  these  may  be  added  the  earliest 
Disciplines,  especially  the  series  of  annual  Disciplines  following 
that  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  six  in  number,  from  1786  to 
1791  inclusive,  and  the  first  Discipline  which  had  quadrennial 
force,  unrevisable  by  annual  Conferences,  ordained  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1792.    In  so  far  as  these  Disciplines  contain 
references  to  the  Christmas  Conference,  or  other  data  from 

^Title-page  of  the  first  Discipline,  1785. 
*  See  the  preceding  chapter,  p.  95. 
(98) 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  99 


whicli  its  character  may  be  gathered  or  concladed,  they  of 
course  possess  very  high  value  as  historical  evidence,  both  be- 
cause of  their  official  character  and  because  men  who  partici- 
pated in  the  proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference  were  also 
members  of  the  annual  Conferences,  and  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1792,  which  ordained  these  Disciplines. 

In  the  Private  Contemporaneous  Sources  are  to  be  included 
the  writings  of  persons  who  were  participants  in,  or  eyewit- 
nesses of,  the  proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  These 
writings  are  treated  in  general  as  contemporary  sources  because 
they  are,  as  noted,  the  work  of  eyewitnesses  and  participants. 
Their  dates  of  publication  are  later,  and  vary  considerably. 
Notice  of  these  variations  will  be  taken,  and  so  far  as  they  affect 
the  value  of  evidence  on  particular  points,  due  consideration 
will  be  given  them  in  the  proper  connection.  So  far  as  our  re- 
searches have  revealed,  the  following  persons,  participants  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  have  put  to  record 
more  or  less  formal  accounts  of  the  doings  of  the  body:  Fran- 
cis Asbury  (Journal);  Thomas  Coke  (Journal  and  Ordination 
Sermon);  Freeborn  Garrettson  (Journal;  Articles  in  Methodist 
Quarterly  Revieic,  July,  1830;  and  notices  in  Baugs's  Life  of  Gar- 
rettson); James  O'Kelly  (Apology  and  Vindication  of  Apology, 
both  answered  by  Snethen);  William  Phoebus  (An  Essay  on  the 
Doctrine  and  Order  of  the  Evangelical  Church  of  America,  as 
Constituted  at  Baltimore  in  1784;  and  Memoirs  of  Bishop 
Whatcoat);  Thomas  "Ware  (Autobiography,  and  Article  on  the 
Christmas  Conference  in  the  Metlioclist  Quarterly  Review,  for 
January,  1832);  William  Watters  (A  Short  Account  of  the 
Christian  Experience  and  Ministerial  Labors  of  William  Wat- 
ters, Drawn  up  by  Himself);  Kichard  Whatcoat  (extracts  and 
notices  in  the  Memoirs  by  Phoebus  noted  above).  To  these  may 
be  added  the  Funeral  Discourse  of  Ezekiel  Cooper  preached  on 
the  death  of  Asbury,  for  while  Cooper  was  not  a  member  of  the 
Christmas  Conference,  he  was  present  at  Barratt's  Chapel  when 
the  steps  were  taken  for  calling  it,  and  thus  he  becomes  a  first- 
hand source  for  that  portion  of  the  history  of  the  body. 

Jesse  Lee  occupies  a  unique  position,  and  his  History  has  a 
value, all  its  own.  He  failed  to  get  Garrettson's  call  to  attend 
the  Christmas  Conference  in  time,  and  so  was  not  present.  But 
his  History  evinces  on  every  page  the  most  painstaking  care  to 


100 


THE  MAKISG  OF  METHODISM. 


procure,  and  the  most  literal  exactness  in  tlie  use  of,  all  availa- 
ble sources  of  information  concerning  the  history  of  the  Church. 
As  a  contemporary  historian  of  this  character,  therefore,  he 
stands  apart  from  all  later  historians;  and  we  think  we  but  voice 
the  conviction  of  every  careful  student  of  his  pages  in  declaring 
that  his  record  is  entitled  to  the  highest  respect  and  confidence, 
and  ought  to  be  recognized  among  the  sources. 

Let  us  now  undertake  a  formal  enumeration  of  these  Public 
and  Private  Contemporaneous  Sources  of  the  History  of  the 
Christmas  Conference.  Such  a  catalogue  has  not  before  been 
undertaken.  In  a  piece  of  pioneer  work  of  this  sort,  we  must 
crave  the  reader's  indulgence.  At  best,  though  based  upon  the 
studies  of  a  good  many  years,  it  is  only  a  first  draft,  to  be  com- 
pleted or,  if  necessary,  corrected  as  opportunity  may  offer.  It 
has  not  been  possible  to  visit  any  of  the  historical  libraries  of 
Methodism:  our  sole  dependence  has  been  upon  our  own  private 
collection  of  sources  and  authorities  for  Methodist  history 
(which,  perhaps,  will  compare  not  unfavorably  with  others)  to- 
gether with  several  volumes  very  kindly  placed  at  our  disposal 
by  friends. 

Our  catalogue  of  sources,  with  appended  remarks,  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

I. 

Public  Contempoeaey  Soueces. 
1.  Minutes  of  Several  Conversations  between  The  Eev.  Thomas 
Coke,  LL.D.  The  Eev.  Francis  Asbury  and  others,  at  a  Con- 
ference, begun  in  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on 
Monday,  the  21th.  of  December,  in  the  year  1784.  Compos- 
ing a  Form  of  Discipline  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers  and 
other  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Amer- 
ica.   Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Charles  Cist,  in  Arch-Street, 
the  Corner  of  Fourth-Street.  M,DCC,LXXXV. 
This  First  Discipline,  though  quite  rare,  is  not  so  scarce  as 
that  of  1787  (known  to  exist  in  only  two  copies),  or,  probably, 
that  of  1788,  which  is  very  difiicult  to  secure.    The  title-page 
above  is  taken  directly  from  the  original.    It  consists  of  an  un- 
broken series  of  eighty-one  questions  and  answers.    It  is  bound 
up  with  the  Sunday  Service  compiled  by  Mr.  Wesley,  and 
brought  over  in  sheets  by  Dr.  Coke,  whose  title-page  reads  as 
follows: 


GEX&'SIiy  OF  GESEHAL  AXD  AXM'AL  CUXFEIiEXCES.  101 


The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America.  "With 
other  Occasional  Services.  London:  Printed  in  the  year 
MDCCLXXXIV. 

The  contents  of  this  Sunday  Service,  as  indicated  by  separate 
headings,  after  the  tables  of  proper  lessons,  are  as  follows: 

(1)  The  Order  for  Morning  Prayer  Every  Lord's  Day.  (Pp. 
7-14.) 

(2)  The  Order  for  Evening  Prayer  Every  Lord's  Day.  (Pp. 
14-19.) 

(3)  The  Litany.    (Pp.  20-26.) 

(4)  A  Prayer  and  Thanksgiving  to  be  used  every  Lord's  Day. 
(Pp.  26,  27.)' 

(5)  The  Collects,  Epistles,  and  Gospels,  To  be  used  through- 
out the  year.    (Pp.  27-124.) 

(6)  The  Order  for  the  Administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
(Pp.  125-139.) 

(7)  The  Ministration  of  Baptism  of  Infants.    (Pp.  139-143.) 

(8)  The  Ministration  of  Baptism  to  such  as  are  of  Eiper 
Years.    (Pp.  143-149.) 

(9)  The  Form  of  Solemnization  of  Matrimony.  (Pp.  149- 
155.) 

(10)  The  Communion  of  the  Sick.    (Pp.  155,  156.) 

(11)  The  Order  for  the  Burial  of  the  Dead.    (Pp.  156-161.) 

( 12 )  Select  Psalms.    ( Pp.  162-279. ) 

(13)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Making  and  Ordaining  of 
Superintendauts,  Elders,  and  Deacons.    (Pp.  280-305.) 

(a)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Making  of  Deacons. 

(b)  The  Form  and  Manner  of  Ordaining  of  Elders. 

(c)  The  Form  of  Ordaining  of  a  Superintendant. 

(14)  Articles  of  Keligion  (twenty-four  in  number).  (Pp. 
306-314) 

These  titles  are  all  verbally  exact,  being  taken  directly  from 
the  book  itself.  The  preface  is  signed  by  John  Wesley  and 
dated  Bristol,  September  9,  1784.  Bound  up  with  the  "  Min- 
utes" and  the  "Sunday  Service  "  is  also  "A  Collection  of  Psalms 
and  Hymns,"  whose  contents  do  not  here  concern  us. 


2.  Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Conferences,  annually  held  in 
America,  From  1773  to  1794,  inclusive.  Philadelphia:  Printed 


102 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


by  Henry  Tuckniss,  No.  25  Church-Alley,  and  sold  by  John 
Dickins,  No.  44,  North  Second  Street,  near  Arch  Street. 
M  DCC  XCV. 

The  preface  of  these  "  Minutes  "  bears  date  "  Botetourt,  May 
24th,  1794."  In  Asbury's  Journal,  under  date  of  May  21,  1794, 
we  find  this  entry:  "Came  to  M  on  Mill-Creek,  in  Bote- 
tourt's county,  where  I  was  met  by  brother  I.  E.  who  assisted 
me  next  day  in  preparing  the  minutes."  ^  As  John  Dickins,  the 
first  book  agent,  was  the  publisher,  so  doubtless  Bishop  Asbury 
was  the  editor,  of  this  first  volume  of  collected  Minutes.  We 
know  that  it  was  he  that  edited  the  Discipline  of  1787,  arrang- 
ing it  "  under  proper  heads  "  and  methodizing  it  "  in  a  more 
acceptable  and  easy  manner."  ^  And  scarcely  any  other  person 
would  have  assumed  tlie  responsibility  of  eliminating  from  the 
Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  1777  and  1779  the  questions  per- 
taining to  the  ordinances  and  the  threatened  schism,  which  we 
are  able  to  supply  from  Gatch's  manuscript  Journal  as  published 
by  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee. 

That  the  volume  was  a  compilation,  partly  of  printed,  and 
partly  of  manuscript,  documents  is  also  evident  from  the  preface, 
where  an  objection  to  the  purchase  of  the  new  volume  is  antic- 
ipated and  answered:  "It  may  be  objected  (as  it  has  been  by 
some  on  similar  occasions)  that  'many  of  these  minutes  have 
been  already  printed,  and  we  have  to  purchase  the  same  books 
twice';"  to  which  the  second  answer  is,  "Although  many  of 
our  yearly  minutes  have  been  printed,  yet  many  others  have 
not,  and  those  that  are  published  being  in  small  pamphlets  are 
more  liable  to  be  lost,  and  we  have  found  only  one  person  in 
whose  hands  a  complete  collection  of  the  said  minutes  was  to 
be  found."  ^ 

But  for  the  exactness  and  completeness  of  Jesse  Lee,  this 
would  be  about  all  we  should  know  about  this  interesting  and 
important  volume.  In  particular  we  should  be  unable  to  tell 
which  of  the  annual  minutes  had  been  previously  printed  in 
pamphlet  form,  and  which  had  been  preserved  only  in  manu- 
script. But  at  the  close  of  his  account  of  the  twelfth  Confer- 
ence, which  met  in  the  spring  of  1784 — the  last  Conference  be- 
iJournal,  ii.  192. 

^Journal,  Nov.  27, 1785,  and  April  5,  1786;  Title-page  Discipline  of  1787. 
3  Preface,  pp.  iii,  iv. 


GEXESIS  OF  GEXEBAL  AXD  ANNUAL  COXFEBENCES.  103 


fore  the  meeting  of  the  Christmas  Confereuce — Lee  carefully 
adds  this  Note: 

Here  end  the  minutes  that  were  formerly  taken  and  kept  in  manuscript, 
and  not  printed  until  1795.  After  this  all  our  annual  minutes  were  printed 
every  year.  In  the  following  part  of  this  history  the  printed  minutes  will 
be  attended  to  as  they  came  out  year  after  year.  ^ 

In  connection  with  his  account  of  the  Conferences  immedi- 
ately following  the  Christmas  Conference,  in  the  spring  of  1785, 
Mr.  Lee  again  says:  "And  for  the  first  time  we  had  the  annual 
minutes  printed;  which  practice  we  have  followed  ever  since."  ^ 
Thus  when  Asbury  and  Dickins,  in  179i,  as  editor  and  publisher, 
undertook  the  issue  of  the  first  volume  of  collected  General 
Minutes,  they  had  before  them  the  manuscript  minutes  of  the 
Conferences  from  1773  to  the  spring  of  1784  inclusive,  and  the 
annual  pamphlet  minutes  of  the  Conferences  from  the  spring 
of  1785  to  1791  inclusive.  They  may  have  had  also  the  manu- 
script records  of  these  last  Conferences;  but  it  is  of  importance 
to  notice,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  that  printed  annual  min- 
utes had  been  issued  during  these  years. 

"The  business  of  the  three  Conferences  [held  in  April,  May, 
and  June,  1785],"  says  Mr.  Lee,  "  was  all  arranged  in  the  min- 
utes as  if  it  had  all  been  done  at  one  time  and  place — "  ^  and 
that  time  and  place  were  "  Baltimore,  January,  1785,"  according' 
to  the  caption  in  the  Minutes.*  But  here  Mr.  Lee's  statement 
vaiies  from  the  record  of  1795,  for  the  minute  business  of 
the  Christmas  Conference,  which  is  thus  made,  though  inexactly, 
to  give  date  to  the  other  three,  is  recorded  in  answer  to  ques- 
tions which  record  also  the  business  done  at  the  three  Confer- 
ences of  1785,  without  in  any  way  distinguishing  what  business 
was  done  at  each  of  these  four  Conferences.  To  this  extent  the 
business  of  four  Conferences,  including  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, was  amalgamated,  and  all  treated  as  annual  Conferences 
of  1785  in  the  minutes  which  contain  the  only  official  record  of 
the  ordinations  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 

The  only  fact  that  gives  the  Minutes  of  1785,  as  printed  in  the 
General  Minutes  of  1795,  less  historical  value  than  those  "  Min- 

>  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  89. 
»lbid.,  p.  118. 
sjbicL,  p.  118. 
^P.  75. 


104 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHUDIUM. 


utes  "  of  the  Cliristmas  Conference,  "  composing  a  Form  of  Dis- 
cipline" -.vliicli,  as  we  have  seen  above,  Coke  printed  immediately 
on  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference,  is  that  we  cannot  be 
certain  that  the  reprint  of  1795  is  an  exact  reproduction  of  the 
original  pamphlet  minutes  of  1785:  in  particular  we  cannot  by 
certain  evidence  carry  the  introductory  note,  giving  a  brief  ac- 
count of  the  Christmas  Conference  and  the  organization  of  the 
Church,  higher  than  1795.  For  our  own  part  we  should  be  very 
glad  to  date  this  note  1785,  and,  without  due  consideration,  we 
once  so  assumed.^  We  have  some  knowledge  of  the  editorial 
liberties  which  Asbury  allowed  himself  in  the  compilation  of 
this  volume;  there  is  one  appended  footnote  which  could  not 
have  been  written  in  1785;  the  word  "bishop"  is  used  as  an 
alternative  for  "  superintendent,"  though  it  occurs  nowhere  in 
"Wesley's  ordination  office  contained  in  his  Sunday  Service,  and 
was  not  introduced  into  the  Discipline  until  1787,  when  it  excited 
^  some  comment,  until  confirmed  by  the  Conference;  and  the 
tenor  and  tenses  of  the  few  lines  devoted  to  the  organization 
seem  to  indicate  a  subsequent  record.  None  of  these  consider- 
ations demonstrate  that  this  note  could  not  have  been  written  in 
1785;  but  taken  together  they  seem  to  throw  considerable  doubt 
on  that  date,  and  as  our  earliest  printed  copy  bears  date  of 
1795,  when  all  the  annual  minutes  from  the  beginning  to  that 
date  were  collected  and  edited  by  Asbury,  we  cannot,  by  indu- 
bitable evidence,  carry  the  introductory  note  higher  than  this. 
The  most  important  verification  of  the  existing  records  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  that  can  well  be  anticipated  from  the  dis- 
closures of  the  future  is  the  possible  discovery  of  the  original 
pamphlet  minutes  of  1785,  by  which  our  copy  of  1795  may  be 
either  confirmed  or  corrected. 

These  considerations  do  not  apply  fully  to  the  titles  under 
which  the  minutes  of  1785,  1786,  and  1787,  were  republished  in 
1795.  Jesse  Lee,  referring  to  the  pamphlets  of  annual  minutes  to 
which  he  had  promised  to  pay  particular  attention,  says:  ^  "This 
year  [1785],  and  the  two  succeeding  years,  the  minutes  were 

1  See  Constitutional  History,  footnote,  p.  197. 

2  Short  History,  p.  118.  Singularly  overlooking  these  words  of  Lee's, 
though  we  had  occasion  to  consult  the  page  on  which  they  occur  in  the  prep- 
aration of  the  article,  we  fell  into  the  error  of  denying  a  higher  date  than 
]79o  for  these  titles,  in  our  paper  in  The  Methodist  Review  for  July,  1895, 
p.  389.   This  error  is  now  corrected  above. 


GEXES/S  OF  GKXERAL  AND  AXSVAL  COX FKREXCEff.  105 


called,  'Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcox^al  Church  in  America.' "  Turning  to  the  General  Min- 
utes of  1795,  we  find  the  full  title  for  1785  in  that  volume  to  be, 
"Minutes  of  some  Conversations  between  the  Ministers  and 
Preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  a  General 
Conference  held  at  Baltimore,  January  1785."  ^  Without  turn- 
ing aside  now  to  discuss  the  significance  of  this  variation  from 
Lee,  we  simply  note  here  that  titles  identical  with  Lee's  were 
employed  for  the  Conferences  of  1786  and  1787,  the  proceedings 
of  the  former  appearing  under  the  caption,  "Minutes  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  the 
year  1786,"^  and  of  the  latter  under  that  of  "Minutes  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  the 
year  1787." « 

3.  In  the  third  place  we  class  as  Public  Contemporary  Sources 
the  annual  Disciplines  from  1786  to  1791  inclusive,  and  the  first 
quadrennial  Discipline  of  1792.*  "We  append  the  exact  and  full 
titles  of  these  volumes,  taking  all  from  the  title-pages  of  the  books 
themselves,  including  the  original  of  the  Discipline  of  1787,  where 
the  agreement  of  all  three  of  the  reprints  may  also  be  noted. 

1786.  The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  America,  forming  the  Constitution 
of  the  said  Church. 

These  "  General  Minutes"  fill  pp.  322-355  of  a  volume  usually 
known  as  the  second  edition  of  the  Sunday  Service.  There  is 
no  distinct  title-page  for  the  "  Minutes  "  constituting  the  Disci- 
pline, or  "forming  the  Constitution"  of  the  Church;  the  title 
cited  above  is  simply  a  general  heading  at  the  top  of  page  322. 
The  title-page  of  the  Sunday  Service  which  includes  this  Disci- 
pline is  as  follows: 

The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  In  the  United-States  of 
America.   With  other  Occasional  Services.   London:  Printed 

1  Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Conferences,  annually  held  in  America,  From 
1773  to  1794,  inclusive:  1795,  p.  75. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  85. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  95. 

We  do  not  mean  to  exclude  later  Disciplines  from  proper  consideration; 
tut  this  seems  the  right  limit  for  this  catalogue. 


106 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


by  Frys  and  Couchman,  Worship-Street  Upper-Moorfields, 
1786. 

1787.  A  Form  of  Discipline,  for  tlie  Ministers,  Preacliers,  and 
Members  of  tlie  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 
Considered  and  approved  at  a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore, 
in  the  State  of  Maryland,  On  Monday  the  27th  of  December, 
1784:  in  which  The  Eevereud  Thomas  Coke,  L.L.D.  and  the 
Eeverend  Francis  Asbury,  presided.  Arranged  under  proper 
Heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Man- 
ner.  New- York:  Printed  by  W.  Koss,  iu  Broad-Street. 
M.  DCC.  LXXXVII.1 

1788.  A  Form  of  Discipline,  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and 
Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 
Considered  and  apjiroved  at  a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore, 
in  the  State  of  Maryland,  On  Monday  the  27th  of  December, 
1784:  in  which  The  Keverend  Thomas  Coke,  L.L.D.  and  the 
Eeverend  Francis  Asbury,  presided.  Arranged  under  proper 
Heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Man- 
ner. With  some  other  useful  Pieces  annexed.  Elizabeth- 
Town:  Printed  by  Shepard  Kollock.    M.  DCC.  LXXXVIII 

The  "useful  pieces  annexed"  are  the  General  Eules  (nine- 
teenth edition,  signed  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  and  dated  May  28, 
1787),  the  Articles  of  Eeligion,  and  An  Address  to  the  Friends 
and  Annual  Subscribers  to  the  support  of  Cokesbury-College, 
all  three  with  separate  title-pages,  with  publisher  and 
date  as  given  above.  This  Discipline  contains  also  two 
other  "pieces":  "The  Scrii^ture  Doctrine  of  Predestina- 
tion, Election,  and  Eeprobation"  (with  a  separate  title-page), 
and  "Serious  Thoughts  on  the  Infallible,  Unconditional,  Per- 
severance of  all  that  have  once  experienced  Faith  in  Christ."  ^ 

1789.  A  Form  of  Discipline,  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and 
Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America^ 
Considered  and  Approved  at  a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore, 
in  the  State  of  Maryland  On  Monday  the  27th  of  December, 
1784:  in  which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbui'y,  Presided: 

1  For  an  account  of  this  "arranging"  and  "methodizing"  see  Tigert's  Con- 
Rtitutional  History,  pp.  239-241. 

2  These  "  useful  pieces,"  in  this  and  the  following  Disciplines,  are  omitted 
from  the  reprints. 


GEXESIS  OF  GEXERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  107 


Arranged  under  proper  Heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more  ac- 
ceptable and  easy  Manner:  With  some  other  useful  Pieces 
annexed.  The  Fifth  Edition.  New- York:  Printed  by  Wil- 
liam Eoss,  in  Broad-Street.    M.  DCC.  LXXXIX. 

The  "useful  pieces  annexed"  are  the  Articles  of  Eeligion, 
and  the  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  etc.,  with  separate 
title-pages,  publisher  and  date  as  given  above,  and,  with  distinct 
headings  but  no  title-pages,  "Serious  Thoughts,"  etc.,  and  "A 
Plain  Account  of  Christian  Perfection,  as  believed  and  taught  by 
the  Eev.  Mr.  John  Wesley,  From  the  year  1725,  to  the  year  1765." 

1790.  A  Form  of  Discipline  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers  and 
Members  (now  comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines) 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  considered 
and  approved  at  a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State 
of  Maryland  On  Monday  the  27th  of  December,  1784:  In 
which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  Presided:  Arranged 
under  proper  Heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more  acceptable  and 
easy  manner.  The  Sixth  Edition.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by 
E.  Aitken  &  Son,  No.  22.  Market  Street  and  sold  by  John 
Dickins,  No.  43.  Fourth  Street.    M.  DCC.  XC. 

The  principal  new  feature  of  this  title-page — "  now  comprfi- 
hending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines" — marks  the  transforma- 
tion of  the  "useful  pieces  annexed"  into  sections  of  the  Disci- 
pline itself:  Section  XXXV.  is  the  Articles  of  Eeligion;  Section 

XXXVI.  Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  etc.;  Section 

XXXVII.  Serious  Thoughts,  etc.;  Section  XXXVIII.  A  Plain 
Account  of  Christian  Perfection;  and  Section  XXXIX.  An  Ex- 
tract on  the  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism:  this 
last  Section  has  a  separate  title-page. 

1791.  A  Form  of  Discipline,  for  the  Ministers,  Preachers,  and 
Members  (now  comprehending  the  Principles  and  Doctrines) 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  America,  considered 
and  approved  at  a  Conference  Held  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State 
of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th  of  December,  1784:  in 
which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  Presided:  Arranged 
under  proper  Heads,  and  methodized  in  a  more  acceptable 
and  easy  Manner.  The  Seventh  Edition.  Philadelphia: 
Printed  by  Joseph  Crukshank,  No.  91,  High-street;  and  sold 


108 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM, 


by  John  Dickins,  No.  43,  Fourth-street,  near  the  corner  of 
Eace-street.  MDCCXCL 

In  this  Discipline  the  General  Kules  constitute  Section 
XXXV.;  the  Articles  of  Keligion,  Section  XXXVI.;  the  Scrip- 
ture Doctrine  of  Predestination,  etc.,  Section  XXXVII.;  the 
Serious  Thoughts,  etc..  Section  XXXVIII. ;  the  Plain  Account 
of  Christian  Perfection,  Section  XXXIX.;  and  An  Extract  on 
the  Nature  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism,  Section  XL. — 
the  same  doctrinal  sections  being  continued,  as  in  the  Discipline 
of  1790. 

1792.  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  revised  and  approved  at  the  General  Con- 
ference Held"  at  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  in  No- 
vember, 1792:  in  which  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury, 
Presided:  Arranged  under  proper  Heads,  and  methodized  in 
a  more  acceptable  and  easy  Manner.  The  Eighth  Edition. 
Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Parry  Hall,  No.  149.  Chesnut  street, 
and  sold  by  John  Dickins,  No.  182.  Eace  street,  between  fifth 
and  sixth  street.  M.DCC.XCII. 

Here  for  the  first  time  the  title  "Doctrines  and  Discipline,"  and 
-the  approval  by  a  body  styled  "the  General  Conference,"  meet  us. 
From  the  evolution  of  the  title  and  of  the  book  itself,  as  noticed  in 
ihe  preceding  pages,  it  is  very  evident  that  whatever  may  be 
meant  by  the  phrase,  "  present  existing  and  established  stand- 
ards of  doctrine"  in  the  Eestrictive  Eule  of  1808,^  the  word 
"Doctrines"  when  it  first  appeared  on  the  title-page  of  the 
Discipline  referred  to  the  doctrinal  sections  incorporated  in 
the  book  itself.  Thus  in  the  Discipline  of  1792  the  Articles 
of  Eeligion  are  brought  forward  to  the  position  of  Chapter  I., 
Section  11. ;  Chapter  III.,  Section  IV.  is  "Of  Christian  Per- 
fection"; Section  V.  "Against  Antinomianism  " ;  Section  VI. 
"Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,"  etc.;  Section  VII. 
"Serious  Thoughts  on  the  infallible,  unconditional  Persever- 
ance," etc.;  Section  VIII.  "A  Plain  Account  of  Christian  Per- 
fection," etc.;  and  Section  IX.  "An  Extract  on  the  Nature  and 
Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism."  Section  X.  is  headed  "Sac- 
ramental Services,"  etc.,  and  contains  the  offices  for  the  admin- 


'  Discipline  of  1808,  p.  15, 


GEXESIS  OF  GEXERAL  AND  AXNUAL  COXFEREXCES.  100 


istration  of  the  sacraments,  for  the  ordination  of  deacons,  elders, 
and  bishops,  for  the  solemnization  of  matrimony,  and  for  the 
burial  of  the  dead.  Thus  three  Disciplines,  1790,  1791,  and 
1792,  completely  incorporated  sections  on  doctrine  in  their  con- 
tents, and  this  fact  was  acknowledged  on  their  title-pages.  But 
this  is  not  the  connection  in  which  to  pursue  further  the  impli- 
cations of  these  facts. 

II. 

Private  Contemporary  Sources. 

"We  may  now  rapidly  survey  the  Private  Contemporary 
Sources,  arranging  them,  for  convenience  of  consultation,  in  al- 
phabetical order,  but  indicating,  as  far  as  possible,  the  dates  of 
publication. 

1.  Francis  Ashurij. 
The  Journal  of  the  Eev.  Francis  Asbury,  Bishop  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  from  August  7, 1771,  to  December  7, 
1815.  In  Three  Volumes.  Vol.  I,  from  August  7,  1771,  to 
July  4,  1786.  Vol.  II,  from  July  15,  1786,  to  November  6, 
1800.  Vol.  Ill,  from  November  8, 1800,  to  December  7, 1815. 
New- York:  Published  by  N.  Bangs  and  T.  Mason,  for  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Abraham  Paul,  Printer,  182 
Water-Street.  1821. 

The  earliest  printed  Journal  of  Bishop  Asbury  which  we  have 
been  able  to  discover  is  contained  in  Volume  I.  of  the  Anninian 
Magazine,  published  in  Philadelphia,  in  1789.  In  the  May  num- 
ber, pp.  184-198,  is  piiblished  "  The  Journal  of  Francis  Asbury, 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  from  August  7th, 
1771,  to  February  27, 1772."  No  further  installment  is  given  in 
this  volume;  but  in  Volume  II.,  for  1790,  the  publication  of  the 
Journal  is  resumed,  under  the  same  title  given  above,  and  with 
a  formal  note,  "To  the  Eeader,"  prefixed.  The  issues  for  Feb- 
ruary, pp.  85-90;  for  March,  pp.  141-146;  for  April,  pp.  193- 
199;  for  May,  pp.  245-251;  for  June,  pp.  297-302;  for  July,  pp. 
349-354;  for  August,  pp.  401^07;  for  September,  pp.  453-458, 
all  for  the  year  1790,  contain  together  the  Journal  "From  March 
26, 1772,  to  April  14, 1773."  At  the  close  of  the  installment  for 
September,  1790,  the  notice  is  appended,  "  To  be  continued  in 
Vol.  III."    We  have  not  instituted  a  comparison  between  the 


110 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


Journal  of  1821  and  the  installments  thus  published  in  1789 
and  1790.  It  will  be  noticed  that  they  begin  at  the  same  date, 
^ind  in  quoting  it  is  desirable  to  verify  the  later  by  the  earlier 
record. 

In  addition  to  the  note,  "To  the  Reader,"  published  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1790,  referred  to  above,  the  volume  for  1790  contains  at 
the  beginning  an  address  "  To  the  Subscribers  for  the  Armin- 
ian  Magazine,''  with  this  signature:  "Signed  in  behalf  of  the  Coun- 
cil, Fbancis  Asbuky."  The  Council  was  at  that  time,  it  will  be 
remembered,  the  organ  of  the  general  government  of  the  Church, 
and  had  charge  of  the  publishing  interests;  but  it  was  expressly 
provided  that  "  In  the  intervals  of  the  Council,  the  bishop  shall 
have  power  to  act  in  all  contingent  occurrences  relative  to  the 
printing  business."  ^  A  similar  address  (though  differing,  since 
the  "former  volume"  is  referred  to  in  the  second)  must  have 
been  prefixed  to  the  first  volume,  for  the  date  of  the  address  in 
the  volume  for  1790  is  "  Baltimore,  Dec.  8,  1789,"  which  must 
have  been  carried  over  from  the  first  volume,  from  the  copy  of 
which  before  us  the  title-page  and  address  are  missing.  As  the 
address  refers  to  the  whole  contents  of  the  volume,  it  seems  to 
imply  that  Asbury  sustained  an  editorial  relation  to  the  Armin- 
ian  Magazine,  similar  to  Mr.  Wesley's  position  in  England.  We 
quote  one  sentence  of  his  allusion  to  his  own  Journal: 

As  no  other  satisfactory  account  can  be  procured,  this  journal  will  be  the 
more  acceptable  to  many,  as  it  contains  a  brief  relation  of  the  progress  of 
Methodism,  step  by  step,  through  the  Continent  of  America.^ 

Of  the  general  scope  of  the  Magazine  itself,  Asbury  says: 

It  is  worthy  of  observation  that,  in  time,  this  Magazine  may  form  a  com- 
plete American  library ;  as  most  of  our  publications  will  be  included  therein. 
Unbound  tracts  are  soon  damaged  or  lost:  but  here  all  is  secured  in  good 
binding.   And  this  Magazine  may  serve  the  next  generation.' 

The  full  title  of  the  second  volume  of  this  Magazine  is  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  Arminian  Magazine:  Consisting  of  Extracts  and  Original 
Treatises  on  General  Redemption.  Volume  II.  For  the  Tear 
1790.    Printed  in  Philadelphia,  by  Prichard  &  Hall,  in  Mar- 

1  See  Tigert's  Constitutional  History,  p.  246,  citation  from  Lee. 
^Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  Vol.  II.,  page  iii,  1790. 
8  Ibid.,  p.  iv. 


GENESIS  OF  GEXEEAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  Ill 


ket  Street,  and  sold  by  John  Dickins,  in  Fourth  Street  (East 

side)  near  tlie  corner  of  Race  Street.    M.  DCC.  XO. 

Between  these  publications  in  the  Arminian  Magazine  and  the 
issue  of  the  edition  of  1821  (since  often  reprinted),  an  attempt 
was  made  to  issue  the  Journal.  "  The  Preface  which  Mr.  As- 
bury  prefixed  to  the  first  number  of  the  second  volume  of  his 
Journal,  which  was  printed  during  his  lifetime,"  is  reproduced 
in  Yol.  I.  of  the  edition  of  1821.    In  it  he  says: 

The  first  volume  of  the  extract  of  my  journal  was  published,  many  years 
after  it  was  written,  under  the  management  of  others,  it  being  out  of  my 
power  to  attend  the  press,  or  even  to  read  over  the  copy  before  it  was  printed : 
several  inconveniences  attending  that  volume  will  be  avoided  in  this  [the 
second  volume  of  that  edition]. 

For  many  years  I  did  not  determine  to  publish  a  second  volume  of  the 
extract  of  my  journal :  but  the  advice  of  my  friends,  and  the  prospects  of  my 
approaching  dissolution,  have  determined  me  on  its  publication.^ 

Appended  footnotes  to  this  passage  inform  us  that  the  first 
volume  of  that  edition,  "now  reprinted"  in  the  edition  of  1821, 
"was  corrected  by  the  author";  and  that  the  "determination" 
to  publish  a  second  volume  of  the  former  edition  "was  not  car- 
ried into  effect,  except  one  small  number,  which  is  now  repub- 
lished with  the  corrections  of  the  author." 

Where  this  corrected  printed  material  ends,  and  where  the 
sole  manuscript  matter  begins,  in  the  edition  of  1821,  we  have 
a  clew  for  determining,  in  the  fact  that  Francis  Hollingsworth, 
the  "transcriber"  of  the  Journal  published  in  1821,  in  giving 
assurance  that  "the  work  is  the  author's"  (Asbury's),  adds:  "I 
must  be  understood  to  mean  from  the  year  1780  to  the  end  of 
the  journal;  the  original  manuscript  of  all  that  preceded  that 
date  I  never  saw:  I  only  know  that  when  printed  it  did  not  please 
the  author."  It  may  be  concluded,  therefore,  that  the  printed 
portion  of  the  Journal  contained  in  the  earlier  edition,^  corrected 
by  Asbury,  extended  from  1771  to  1780.  We  are  further  told 
by  Hollingsworth  that  "he  presumes  he  has  been  enough  ob- 
servant of  this  [Bishop  Asbury's  style]  to  satisfy  most  readers, 
inasmuch  as  the  bishop  himself,  when  he  examined  what  had 
been  transcribed  up  to  1807,  altered  but  once,  and  then  not 
much."^ 

1  Journal,  ed.  1821, 1,  pp.  iii,  iv. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  vii. 

^Ibid.,  p.  vii,  cf.  footnote  on  p.  v. 


112 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


On  Thursday,  July  1,  1815,  Asbury  makes  the  following  en- 
try in  his  Journal: 

We  came  to  son  Francis  HoUingsworth's,  Little- York.  My  kind  coun- 
trywoman gave  me  up  her  own  room.  ...  I  sit  seven  hours  a  day, 
looking  over  and  hearing  read  my  transcribed  journal ;  we  have  examined 
;md  approved  up  to  1807.  As  a  record  of  the  early  history  of  Methodism, 
my  journal  will  be  of  use;  and  accompanied  by  the  minutes  of  the  Confer- 
ences, will  tell  all  that  will  be  necessary  to  know.  I  have  buried  in  shades  all 
that  will  be  proper  to  forget,  in  which  I  am  personally  concerned ;  if  truth 
and  I  have  been  wronged,  we  have  both  witnessed  our  day  of  triumph.^ 

Thus,  in  the  edition  of  1821,  we  have  Asbury's  Journal  as  re- 
vised and  approved  by  himself  down  to  the  year  1807;  while 
from  1807  to  December  7,  1815,  the  date  of  the  last  entry,  we 
have  HoUingsworth's  transcription  of  Asbury's  manuscript. 
Bishop  Asbury  died  March  21,  1816. 


1  Journal,  ed.  1821,  iii.  382. 


THOMAS  COKE, 
Foreign  Minister  of  Methc 


CHAPTER  XL 


The  Genesis  of  the  Genebal  and  Annual  Conferences. 

III.  SOUECES  OF  THE  HiSTOKY  OF  THE  ChKISTMAS  CONFERENCE  (CONTINUED). 

We  continue  the  alphabetical  catalogue  of  the  Private  Contem- 
porary Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Christmas  Conference  be- 
gun in  the  last  chapter. 

2.  Thomas  Coke. 

The  Journal  of  Thomas  Coke,  Bishop  of  the  Methodist-Episco- 
pal Church,  From  September  18th,  1784,  to  June  3,  1785. 

Under  the  title  given  above,  the  Journal  of  Bishop  Coke,  cov- 
ering minutely  the  entire  period  of  his  first  visit  to  America, 
from  the  date  of  his  sailing  from  England  to  that  of  his  depart- 
ure from  America,  is  published  in  the  Arminian  Magazine,  Phil- 
adelphia, for  May,  June,  July,  and  August,  1789:  May,  pp. 
237-244;  .Tune,  pp.  286-297;  July,  pp.  339-346;  and  August,  pp. 
391-398.  Like  the  "Minutes"  or  "Discipline"  of  1785  and 
Asbury's  Journal,  Coke's  Journal  is  a  strictly  contemporaneous 
source  for  the  history  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  embracing 
Coke's  account  of  the  calling  of  the  Conference,  of  the  vrork  of 
the  body,  of  the  ordinations  of  Bishop  Asbury  and  of  the  fii"st 
American  Methodist  deacons  and  elders,  and  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This  entire  Journal 
was  republished  in  The  Methodist  Review  for  September- 
October,  1896,  pp.  3-32,  the  editor  taking  the  utmost  care  "  to  se- 
cure exact  conformity  to  the  original;  this  conformity  extending 
to  all  italicized  words,  spelling,  punctuation,  and  most  of  the 
typographical  peculiarities."  It  has  also  been  reprinted  as  a 
separate  pamphlet,  which  may  be  procured  of  the  editor,  with  the 
following  title-page: 


The  Journal  of  Thomas  Coke,  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
8  (113) 


114 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


pal  Churcli,  From  September  18,  1784,  to  June  3,  1785.  Ee- 
priuted  from  tlie  Anninian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  for  May, 
June,  July,  and  August,  1789.  Carefully  conformed  to  the 
original  under  the  Editorial  Supervision  of  Jno.  J.  Tigert, 
Book  Editor,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Nashville, 
Tenn. :  Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South.    Barbee  and  Smith,  Agents.  1896. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  there  was  published  in  London, 
in  1793,  a  vokime  entitled,  "Extracts  of  the  Journals  of  the 
Eev.  Dr.  Coke's  Five  Visits  to  America."  It  will  be  noticed 
that  this  volume  on  its  face  purports  to  be  no  more  than  "  Ex- 
tracts." So  far  as  we  are  aware  no  material  discrepancies  have 
been  brought  to  light  as  to  statements  of  fact  between  the  por- 
tion of  this  volume  which  covers  the  period  of  Dr.  Coke's  first 
visit  to  America  and  the  complete  Journal  of  that  visit  as  orig- 
inally published  in  the  American  Arminian  Magazine  for  1789. 
There  are,  however,  additions,  omissions,  and  alterations  of  lan- 
guage, such  as,  for  the  most  part,  are  naturally  accounted  for 
as  justifiable  or  necessary  editorial  adaptations  of  "Extracts" 
intended  for  a  new  audience  beyond  seas  reading  this  portion 
of  the  Journal  nine  years  after  it  was  put  to  record  and  four 
years  after  its  original  publication.  For  example,  in  the  Ar- 
minian Magazine  for  June,  1789,  p.  293,  it  is  said  of  the  Church 
in  New  York  in  January  following  the  Christmas  Conference: 
"  We  expected  this  society  would  have  made  the  greatest  oppo- 
sition to  our  plan,  but  on  the  contrary  they  have  been  the  most 
foiward  to  promote  it.  They  have  already  put  up  a  reading 
desk,  and  railed  in  a  communion  table,"  etc.  Now  this  passage 
has  been  omitted  from  the  volume  of  "Extracts."  The  motive 
is  obvious.  It  would  have  been  a  grave  imprudence  and  a  use- 
less particularity  to  have  republished  in  England  in  1793  that 
the  New  York  Society  had  been  suspected  of  disaffection  in 
1784 — especially  when  the  suspicions  proved  to  be  altogether 
groundless!  ^  Nevertheless,  charges  of  a  vague  but  sufficiently 
grave  nature  have  been  formulated  or  hinted  from  time  to  time 
by  persons,  outside  and  inside  of  Methodism,  who,  apparently  in- 
spired by  hostile  or  destructive  motives  of  one  sort  or  another, 

lA  more  important  variation,  often  brought  forward,  is  discussed  in  Ti- 
gert's  Constitutional  History,  pp.  180, 181. 


GEXESTS  OF  GEXEIiAL  AND  AXXI'AL  COXFEREXCES.  115 


have  sought  to  cast  some  shade  of  discredit  upon  what  we  believe 
to  be  the  historically  demonstrable  facts  of  the  organization  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  by  Coke  and  Asbury  and  their 
compeers  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  These  attacks  have  been 
continued  to  our  day,  and  the  modern  have  one  unvarying  char- 
acteristic in  common  with  the  earliest  assaults:  they  make  the 
same  efforts  at  arraignment  of  the  motives  and  character  of  the 
chief  actors  in  these  momentous  transactions,  basing  their  ac- 
cusations upon  insinuations  and  alleged  proofs  of  insincerity, 
vanity,  ambition,  and  double  dealing,  and  hardly  stopping  short 
of  the  impeachment  of  the  veracity  and  integrity  of  the  first 
bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  This  is  a  ques- 
tion about  which  we  have  had  something  to  say  elsewhere,  and 
of  which  we  may  have  more  to  say  hereafter,  but  into  which 
we  cannot  enter  here.  In  the  matter  of  the  two  editions  of 
Coke's  Journal,  and  their  variations,  a  few  general  remarks  muy 
be  here  recorded:  (1)  The  London  edition  of  1793  never  pro- 
fessed to  be  comijlete:  on  its  face  it  purported  to  be  an  abbrevi- 
ation; (2)  Its  changes  could  not  have  been  intended  to  deceive 
Mr.  "Wesley,  for  at  the  date  of  its  publication  Mr.  Wesley  had 
been  in  his  grave  two  years — a  rather  material  fact,  which  some 
of  Coke's  maligners,  in  their  ignorance  or  disregard  of  chronol- 
ogy, seem  to  have  overlooked;  (3)  Yague  charges  intended  to 
affect  Coke's  sincerity  or  veracity,  or  his  value  as  a  witness,  so 
far  as  they  do  not  fall  of  their  own  weight,  are  to  be  set  at  rest 
by  a  detailed  comparison  throughout  of  the  variant  passages  in 
the  texts  of  the  two  editions,  a  work  which  we  have  not  had  the 
opportunity  to  do,  and  which,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  never  been 
systematically  and  exhaustively  performed:  when  done,  as  it 
ought  to  be,  we  believe  it  will  constitute  a  final  historical  vin- 
dication of  Coke's  record;  (4)  There  is  nowhere  any  hint  of  any 
editing  done  on  the  original  American  edition  of  Coke's  Jour- 
nal published  in  the  Arminian  Magazine  in  1789:  as  an  original 
unmutilated  contemporaneous  record,  standing  in  date  of  pub- 
lication within  five  years  of  the  events  it  describes,  and  appear- 
ing four  years  before  the  London  edition  of  "  Extracts,"  it  must 
be  regarded,  in  any  event,  as  the  primary  and  most  valuable 
witness. 

In  addition  to  his  Journal,  published  as  noticed  above.  Dr. 
Coke  printed  at  Baltimore,  between  February  26  and  March  G, 


116 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


1785,  "the  substance  of  a  sermon,"  "preached  at  the  ordination 
of  brother  Asbury  to  the  office  of  a  bishop."  It  consists  of  two 
parts,  (1)  "A  vindication  of  our  conduct";  and  (2)  "The  char- 
acteristics of  a  Christian  bishop."  ^  When  copies  of  this  ser- 
mon, preached  before  an  American  audience,  on  occasion  of  the 
ordination  of  the  first  Protestant  bishop  on  American  soil,  and 
at  the  organization  of  the  first  American  Episcopal  Church, 
reached  England,  a  passage  arraigning  the  English  Episcopal 
Establishment  gave  great  umbrage,  especially  to  Charles  Wes- 
ley, who  is  understood  to  have  been  the  author  of  certain  anon- 
ymous strictures  upon  it;  but  when  he  wrote  his  brother  John 
challenging  his  attention  to  Dr.  Coke's  "ordination  sermon" 
(Sept.  8,  1785),  John  deliberately  replied  (Sept.  13,  1785),  "I 
believe  Dr.  Coke  is  as  free  from  ambition  as  from  covetousness. 
He  has  done  nothing  rashly  that  I  know,"  thus  putting  the  final 
stamp  of  his  approval  on  the  acts  of  his  American  ambassador.^ 

3.  Freeborn  Garrettson. 

There  seem  to  be  three  separate  publications  from  the  pen 
of  Garrettson  himself:  (1)  An  autobiography  entitled  "Experi- 
ence and  Travels,"  published  in  Philadelphia  in  1791;  (2)  His 
Journal,  possibly  issued  later  as  a  separate  volume,  but  first  pub- 
lished in  the  Anninian  Magazine  (English)  for  1794;^  (3)  Gar- 
rettson's  "  Semi-Centennial  Sermon,"  published  in  1826.  Utter- 
ances of  Mr.  Garrettson's  are  also  cited  in  two  papers  in  the 
MetJiodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly  Review  for  July,  1830,  one  en- 
titled "A  Eeply  to  Mr.  Alexander  McCaine,"  pp.  325-341,  and 
the  other  a  review  of  Bangs's  "Life  of  the  Eev.  Freeborn  Gar- 

^Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia,  June,  1789,  p.  294. 

2  The  expression  in  the  sermon  which  gave  chief  offense  in  England  was 
as  follows:  "The  Church  of  England,  of  which  the  Society  of  Methodists  in 
general  have  till  lately  professed  themselves  a  part,  did  for  many  years 
groan  in  America  under  grievances  of  the  heaviest  kind.  Subjected  to  a 
hierarchy,  which  weighs  everything  in  the  scale  of  politics,  its  most  impor- 
tant interests  were  repeatedly  sacrificed  to  the  supposed  advantages  of  En- 
gland." 

3  It  was  expected  that  two  volumes,  both  ascribed  to  Garrettson,  would  be 
m  hand  before  this  volume  went  to  press,  but  they  have  been  delayed.  One 
correspondent  refers  to  the  volume  in  his  possession  as  an  autobiography, 
the  other  as  a  journal.  As  Bangs,  in  the  prefa-  e  to  his  Life  of  Garrettson, 
calls  Garrettson's  "  account  of  his  experience  and  travels  "  a  journal,  it  is 
probable  that  these  volumes  are  identical. 


GEXESIS  OF  GESEBAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  117 


rettson,"  pjD.  341-360.  To  these  sources  must  be  added:  "The 
Life  of  the  Eev.  Freeborn  Garrettsou:  Compiled  from  his  Print- 
ed and  Manuscript  Journals,  and  other  Authentic  Documents. 
By  Nathan  Bangs,  D.D." 

4,  James  O'KeJhj. 

This  great  schismatic,  ordained  elder  at  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, published  two  pamphlets,  both  replied  to  by  Nicholas 
Snethen,  which  are  freely  quoted  in  the  histories  and  biogra- 
phies under  the  title  of  O'Kelly's  Apology  and  Vindication  of 
Apology.  O'Kelly's  first  pamphlet  was  signed  "  Christicola," 
and  its  full  title  was  "The  Author's  Apology  for  Protesting 
against  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Government."  Its  style  imi- 
tated that  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles.  Suethen  promptly  issued 
"A  Eeply  to  an  Apology,"  to  which  O'Kelly  made  answer  in  "A 
Vindication  of  an  Apology,"  to  which  Snethen  in  turn  replied 
with  "An  Answer  to  James  O'Kelly's  Vindication  of  his  Apol- 
ogy." Jesse  Lee  also  prepared  a  mannscript  reply  to  O'Kelly 
which  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  inserts  in  his  Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  pp.  278- 
282. 

5.  William  Phoebus. 

Dr.  Phoebus  gave  to  the  Church  two  publications  of  consid- 
erable value  for  the  history  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  The 
full  title-page  of  the  first  is  as  follows: 

An  Essay  on  the  Doctrine  and  Order  of  the  Evangelical  Church 
of  America;  as  Constituted  at  Baltimore  in  1784,  Under  the 
Patronage  of  the  Rev.  John  "Wesley,  A.M.,  Eev.  Thomas  Coke, 
LL.D.,  Eev.  W.  F.  Oterbine,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the  German 
Reformed  Collegiate  Church  in  America,  Eev.  F.  Asbury, 
V.D.M.,  Eev.  Martin  Boehm,  a  Bishop  of  the  Menonists,  Two 
Presbyters  from  the  British  Conference,  and  Sixty  Itinerant 
Preachers,  Eaised  in  the  United  States.  By  William  Phoe- 
bus, M.D.,  one  of  said  itinerant  preachers.  New  York:  Print- 
ed for  the  Author,  by  Abraham  Paul,  182  Water  Street. 
1817. 

Phoebus's  other  and  perhaps  more  important  publication  is 
the  "Memoirs  of  the  Eev.  Eichard  Whatcoat;  late  Bishop  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  New  York,  1828. 


118 


TEE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


6.  Tliomas  Ware.  _ 

Tlie  Kev.  Thomas  Ware  has  also  left  two  publications,  as  fol- 
lows: 

Sketches  of  the  Life  and  Travels  of  Rev.  Thomas  "Ware,  who 
has  been  an  Itinerant  Methodist  Preacher  for  more  than  Fifty 
Years.  Written  by  Himself.  Eevised  by  the  Editors.  New 
York:  Published  by  G.  Lane  and  P.  P.  Sandford,  For  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  At  the  Conference  Office,  200 
Mulberry  Street.    J.  Collord,  Printer.  1842. 

So  reads  the  title-page  of  our  copy,  but  the  copyright  is  dated 
1839,  and  the  preface  is  signed  "  T.  W.  '  Salem,  N.  J.,  March 
28, 1839." 

In  the  Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly  Review  for  January, 
1832,  pp.  96-104,  Mr.  Ware  also  contributed  a  valuable  article 
entitled,  "The  Christmas  Conference  of  1784."^  ' 

7.  WiUiam  Waiters. 

This  first  American  itinerant  published  a  volume  entitled: 

A  Short  Account  of  the  Christian  Experience  and  Ministerial 
Labors  of  William  Watters.  Drawn  up  by  Himself.  Alex- 
andria;— Printed  by  S.  Suowden. 

The  title-page  bears  no  date,  but  the  preface  is  dated,  "  Fair- 
fax, May  14,  1806." 

8.  Bichard  Whatcoat 

If  the  Journal  of  Bishop  Whatcoat  has  been  separately  pub- 
lished, we  have  seen  no  notice  of  it;  but  it  is  freely  used  in  the 
Memoirs  by  Phoebus  noticed  above.  There  is  one  Life  of 
Whatcoat,  which  contains  original  materials  {e.  g.,  a  copy  of 
John  Wesley's  certificate  of  Whatcoat's  ordination  to  the  elder- 
ship, pp.  43,  44),  entitled: 

The  Life  of  Eev.  Richard  Whatcoat,  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  By  Benjamin  St.  James  Fry. 
Edited  by  Daniel  P.  Kidder.  New  York:  Published  by  Lane 
&  Scott,  For  the  Sunday-school  Union  of  the  Methodist 

1  There  is  also  a  letter  of  Ware's,  December,  1828,  published  in  Defense 
of  Truth,  Baltimore,  1829,  and  quoted  by  some  of  the  historians  and  biogra- 
phers. 


GENESIS  OF  GEXERAL  AXD  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  119 


Episcopal  Church,  200  Mulberry  Street.  Joseph  Longking, 
Printer,  1852. 

In  our  preliminary  sketch,  contained  in  the  last  chapter, 
it  was  said  that  Ezekiel  Cooper  and  Jesse  Lee,  though  not 
members  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  were,  for  reasons  as- 
signed, entitled  to  be  recognized  among  the  primitive  sources 
for  the  history  of  the  Conference.  With  a  copy  of  the  title- 
pages  of  their  works,  this  somewhat  hurried  catalogue  of  the 
Private  Contemporary  Sources  of  the  History  of  the  Christmas 
Conference  will  accordingly  close. 

9.  Ezekiel  Cooper. 

The  Substance  of  a  Funeral  Discourse,  Delivered  at  the  Re- 
quest of  the  Annual  Conference,  on  Tuesday,  the  23d  of 
April,  1816,  in  St.  George's  Church,  Philadelphia:  on  the 
Death  of  the  Eev.  Francis  Asbury,  Superintendent,  or  Senior 
Bishop,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Now  Enlarged. 
By  Ezekiel  Cooper,  Presbyter  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  PhiladeliDhia:  Published  by  Jonathan  Pounder, 
No.  134,  North  4th  street,  opposite  St.  George's  Church. 
1819. 

10.  Jesse  Lee. 

A  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  In  the  United  States  of 
America;  Beginning  in  1766,  and  Continued  till  1809.  To 
Which  is  Prefixed  a  Brief  Account  of  Their  Eise  in  England, 
in  the  Tear  1729,  etc.  By  Jesse  Lee,  Author  of  Lee's  Life, 
and  Chaplain  to  Congress.  Baltimore,  Printed  by  Magill 
and  Clime,  Book  Sellers,  224  Baltimore  Street.  1810. 

Postscript. — Since  the  preceding  was  put  in  tj'pe,  one  of  the  volumes 
ascribed  to  Garrettson  has  been  received.  The  title  is:  "Tlie  Experience 
and  Travels  of  Mr.  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Minister  of  the  Metliodist  Episco- 
pal Church  in  North-America.  Philadelphia:  Printed  by  Joseph  Cruk- 
Bhank,  No.  91,  High  Street,  and  Sold  by  John  Dickins,  No.  182,  in  Race 
Street,  near  Sixth  Street.  M.DGC.XCI."  The  Journal,  published  in  the 
English  Arminian  Magazine,  1794,  is  almost  certainly  a  reprint  of  the  "Ex- 
perience and  Travels."  A  third  work  is  attributed  to  Phoebus  (Myles, 
Chronological  History,  ed.  1813,  p.  164)  entitled,  "An  Apology  for  the  Right  of 
Ordination,  in  the  Evangelical  Church  of  America,  called  Methodists,"  pub- 
lished in  1804.  Myles  quotes  extensively  from  it,  and  has  been  much  followed. 


CHAPTEK  XII. 
The  Genesis  of  the  General  anb  Annual  Conferences. 

IV.  The  Historical  Development. 

So  far  in  our  attempt  at  an  objective  and  historical  account  oE 
the  Christinas  Conference,  we  have  considered  (1)  its  origin; 
(2)  its  organization,  membership,  and  minutes;  and  (3)  the 
sources  for  its  history.  Eecognizing  the  results  of  these  pri- 
mary inquiries — which  exact  students  will  do  well  to  review  in 
this  connection — as  solid  historical  ground  beneath  our  feet,  we 
are  now  prej^ared  (4)  to  undertake  a  similar  investigation  of 
the  character  and  enactments  of  the  Christmas  Conference  so 
far  as  they  atfect  or  determine  our  present  theme,  namely,  the 
genesis  of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences  of  Episcopal 
Methodism. 

The  Christmas  Conference  lodged  the  government  of  the 
Church  which  it  had  just  organized  in  a  body  designated  sim- 
ply "the  Conference";  and  on  the  title-page  of  its  own  Min- 
utes, published  by  one  of  its  presidents  immediately  on  its  ad- 
journment, was  itself  designated  with  equal  simplicity  "a  Con- 
ference." A  body  so  designated  had  been  the  only  governing 
assembly  known  in  English  or  American  Methodism  up  to  this 
time.  The  Christmas  Conference  organized  "an  Episcopal 
Church  under  the  direction  of  Superintendents,  Elders,  Dea- 
cons, and  Helpers"  (Ques.  3).  But  "no  person  shall  be  or- 
dained a  Superintendent,  Elder,  or  Deacon,  without  the  coment 
of  a  majority  of  the  Coyiference"  (Ques.  26,  italics  ours);  the 
Superintendent  is  amenable  for  his  conduct  "to  the  Conference: 
who  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper  conduct,  if  they  see 
it  necessary"  (Ques.  27);  and  if  a  superintendent  "ceases  from 
traveling  without  the  consent  of  the  Conference,  he  shall  not 
thereafter  exercise  any  ministerial  function  whatsoever  in  our 
Church"  (Ques.  28).  Moreover,  if  elders  or  deacons  cease 
(120) 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  121 


from  traveling,  "  unless  they  have  the  permission  of  the  Confer- 
ence declared  under  the  hand  of  a  Superintendent,  they  are  on 
no  account  to  exercise  any  of  the  peculiar  functions  of  those 
offices  among  us"  (Ques.  35).  These  quotations  will  suffice  to 
show  that  "the  Conference,"  in  which  the  Christmas  assembly 
lodged  the  government  of  the  Church,  had  supreme  and  final 
electoral  and  disciplinary  authority  over  all  the  officers  and 
agents,  great  and  small — superintendents,  elders,  or  deacons — 
who  administered  the  affairs  of  the  newly  organized  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

The  legislative  authority  of  "  the  Conference  "  was  equal  to  its 
electoral  and  disciplinary  powers.  There  was  no  other  body  to 
legislate.  It  is  true  that  there  is  no  explicit  deposit  or  defini- 
tion of  legislative  powers  confided  to  "  the  Conference  "  to  be 
found  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  For 
this  very  reason  the  Christmas  Conference,  though  an  organiz- 
ing convention,  since  it  created  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
was  not  a  constitutional  convention,  since  it  extended  no  unre- 
pealable  enactments  of  its  own  over  the  authority  of  the  supreme 
governmental  body  which  it  constituted.  The  legislative  activ- 
ity of  "  the  Conference,"  though  exercised  at  great  inconvenience 
and  with  some  degree  of  irregularity,  owing  to  circumstances 
not  necessary  now  to  be  considered,  is  witnessed  by  the  issue  of 
annual  Disciplines  from  1786  to  1791,  inclusive;  or,  from  the 
adjournment  of  the  Christmas  Conference — which  in  its  full 
consciousness  of  its  organizing  function  and  of  its  coming  to- 
gether under  the  extraordinary  call  of  the  preachers  at  Barratt's, 
has  left  no  trace  that  it  even  dreamed  of  perpetuating  its  own 
powers,  or  of  the  appointment  of  a  "General  Conference"  as 
its  "successor" — to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1792,  whieh  met,  not  by  virtue  of  any  act  or  authority  of  the 
■Christmas  Conference,  but  on  the  call  of  "the  Conference"  (or 
Conferences,  since  "the  Conference"  was  then  meeting  in  sev- 
eral sections)  to  which  the  organizing  convention  had  commit- 
ted the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

All  of  these  six  Disciplines  from  1786  to  1791  (all  of  them,  in- 
cluding 1787,  in  the  original )  lie  before  us.  It  would  be  inter- 
esting but  tedious  to  trace  through  them  all  the  legislation  of 
"the  Conference"  in  the  yearly  meetings.  We  shall  have  to  be 
content  with  two  or  three  summary  and  typical  examples. 


122 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


At  the  first  sessions  of  the  tliree  sections  in  which  "the  Con- 
ference"— still  so  designated  iu  the  Discipline  of  1786,  in  all 
the  passages  corresponding  to  those  quoted  above  from  the  first 
Discipline — met  in  1785  the  enactments  of  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference on  the  subject  of  slavery  contained  in  Question  42,  a 
very  voluminous  and  precise  piece  of  work,  were  repealed.  Not 
only  was  Question  42  omitted,  but  Questions  23,  53,  63  (on  the 
trial  of  preachers),  and  64  were  expunged,  while  some  of  the 
additions  will  possibly  be  found  quite  as  significant  as  the  omis- 
sions. Confining  attention  to  the  omission  of  Question  42,  we 
cannot  suppose  that  its  omission  was  due  to  the  exercise  of  any 
revisionary  authority  in  England,  where  the  Discipline  of  178& 
was  published,  for  Dr.  Coke  expressly  informs  us  (Journal, 
June  1, 1785)  that  "we  thought  it  prudent  to  suspend  the  min- 
ute concerning  slavery  for  one  year."  (So  also  Minutes,  ed, 
1795,  p.  83.)  This  occurs  in  Coke's  account  of  the  final  Con- 
ference session  of  the  year  held  at  Baltimore  Avhich,  as  we 
know  from  other  sources,  had  authority  to  take  final  action. 
Again:  in  1789  and  1790  Asbury  carried  through  all  the  ses- 
sions of  those  years,  with  great  difiiculty  and  anxiety,  the  meas- 
ures relative  to  the  creation  and  empowering  of  the  "  Council"  ^ 
as  a  central,  though  not  supreme,  organ  of  administration  and 
government — a  temporary  expedient  which  did  not  long  post- 
pone the  creation  of  the  General  Conference.  Once  more:  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  which  it  is  now  beginning  to  be 
evident  we  shall  be  compelled  to  call  the  first,  was  called  to- 
gether by  the  authority  of  these  same  yearly  assemblies,^  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  also  used  their  sovereign  legislative  powers  in 
the  creation  of  the  Council  and  the  definition  of  its  powers. 

Finally:  we  may  take  the  testimony  of  Jesse  Lee  as  to  the  na- 
ture and  extent  of  the  changes  efPected  by  legislation  between 
the  adjournment  of  the  Christmas  Conference  and  the  assem- 
bling of  the  General  Conference  in  1792.    Lee  says: 

It  was  eight  years  from  the  Christmas  conference,  where  we  became  a 
regular  Church,  to  this  general  conference.  In  which  time  our  form  of  dis- 
cipline had  been  changed,  and  altered  in  so  many  particulars ;  and  the  busi- 
ness of  the  council  had  thrown  the  connection  into  such  confusion,  that  we 

1  For  17S0  see  Lee's  Historj',  j).  149.  Tlie  numerous  references  to  Asbiiry's  Journal 
which  establish  tliis  for  1700  will  be  found  conveniently  summarized  in  Tigert's  Consti- 
tutional History,  iip.  24S,  249. 

2  Minutes  of  1792  (ed.  1795),  p.  178. 


GEXESJS  OF  GENEIiAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  123 


thought  proper  at  this  conference  to  take  under  consideration  the  greater 
part  of  the  form  of  Discipline,  and  either  abolish,  establish,  or  change  the 
rules,  so  that  we  might  all  approve  of,  or  be  reconciled  to,  whatever  might 
be  found  in  the  discipline.^ 

From  tliis  survey,  it  is  now  abundantly  evident  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  from  1784  to  1792  was  not  by  "General" 
Conferences  at  all.  No  suggestion  of  any  such  body  occurs  any- 
where in  the  enactments  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  no 
hint  that  it  took  to  itself  any  such  character.  The  Christmas 
Conference  differed  from  all  General  Conferences  from  1792  to 
1894  in  this  capital  respect — decisive  of  its  exclusion  from  the 
category  of  General  Conferences,  if  no  other  reason  existed — 
that  its  legislative  enactments  did  not  continue  inviolate  and 
inviolable  until  the  meeting  of  a  successor  (so  called),  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1792.  The  facts  of  our  history  are,  as  will 
be  shown  in  detail  in  the  sequel,  that  General  and  Annual  Con- 
ferences are  complementary:  each  implies  the  other,  and  nei- 
ther, in  the  sense  of  the  Discipline,  exists  without  the  other. 
The  body  in  which  were  lodged,  and  which  actually  exercised, 
the  supreme  governmental  powers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — electoral,  disciplinary,  legislative — between  1785  and 
1792  was  neither  a  General  nor  an  Annual  Conference.  It  was 
a  yearly  assembly  or  assemblies  which  combined  the  functions 
of  both.  General  and  Annual  Conferences,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Discipline  from  1792  to  the  present,  had  no  existence  prior  to- 
that  date.  The  functions  of  the  two — General  and  Annual — 
have  been  differentiated  and  defined  out  of  the  undivided  powers 
of  a  primitive  body  known  as  "  the  Conference,"  recognized  and 
set  up — constituted  if  one  please,  since  many  powers  necessary 
to  its  supremacy  were  added,  previously  unknown  in  American 
Methodism — by  the  Christmas  Conference  at  the  time  and  in  the 
act  of  organizing  the  Church.  This  division  and  differentiation 
was  brought  about,  partly  by  the  progress  of  events  and  the 
urgent  necessities  of  the  growing  Church  between  1784  and 
1792 — much  of  which  we  have  clearly  traced  in  other  pages — 
and  partly  by  legislation  which  first  took  decisive  form  in  1792, 
as  we  shall  presently  see,  and  has  been  continued  on  the  main 
lines  then  marked  out  to  the  present  day.  No  such  differentia- 
tion, division,  and  definition  of  powers  is  to  be  found  anywhere 


1  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  192,  193. 


121 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


in  the  law  book  of  the  Church— the  Disciplines  from  1784  to 
1791  inclusive — until  the  Discipline  of  1792  is  reached.  In  the 
interval  between  1784  and  1792  the  yearly  Conferences  exercised 
freely  all  the  powers  afterwards  confined  to  General  Conferences, 
issuing  a  Discipline  annually,  engaging  in  the  election  of  super- 
intendents— as  when  the  Conference  of  1787  put  its  veto  upon 
Wesley's  nomination  of  Whatcoat  and  Garrettson  to  the  super- 
intendency — and  directing  all  the  officers  and  operations  of  the 
Church.  Indeed,  the  Conference  of  1787  exercised  the  highest 
conceivable  act  of  sovereignty  when  it  expunged  from  the 
Discipline  the  only  enactment  which  could  be  regarded  as  a 
limitation  upon  its  sovereignty  which  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence had  placed  in  that  book — namely,  the  resolution  of  sub- 
mission to  Mr,  Wesley.  The  Christmas  Conference  made  the 
elected  suf)erintendent  amenable  "to  the  Conference"  (Ques- 
tion 27,  cited  above).  The  Minutes  of  1795 — back  of  which 
date  we  cannot  with  certainty  carry  the  language,  as  we  have 
previously  seen — declare  this  officer  "  amenable  to  the  body  of 
ministers  and  preachers."  So  be  it.  "  The  body  of  ministers 
and  preachers"  is  "the  Conference";  and  "the  Conference"  is 
"the  body  of  ministers  and  preachers,"  organized  not  as  a 
"  General "  Conference,  not  as  an  "Annual  "  Conference — these 
are  terms  of  legal  determination  at  a  later  date,  which  have  no 
meaning  or  application  here — but  simply  and  only  as  "  the  Con- 
ference." Whether  "the  Conference,"  "the  body  of  ministers 
and  preachers,"  assembled  in  one  place  or  many,  was  a  mere  ac- 
cident in  the  legislative  exercise  of  its  sovereignty,  which  did 
not  in  any  wise  affect  its  character  or  validity,  so  a  majority  of 
"the  body"  was  secured.  The  details  of  this  period  of  our 
government  will  be  presently  considered  so  far  as  our  space  will 
allow,  but  must  not  now  interrupt  our  study  of  the  principles 
involved.  To  speak  of  the  Christmas  Conference  as  a  General 
Conference — using  the  language  in  the  sense  of  the  Discipline 
from  1792  to  the  present,  the  only  sense  in  which  it  has  any 
legal  significance — and  thus  inevitably  to  imply  that  the  au- 
thority of  its  legislation  extended  unimpaired  over  the  whole  in- 
terval from  1784  to  1792,  is  to  falsify  the  history  of  the  Church 
in  many  particulars:  (1)  it  ignores  the  series  of  annual  Disci- 
plines, with  their  multiplied  changes,  issued  during  this  inter- 
val; (2)  it  implies  that  the  Christmas  Conference  was  an  organ 


GKXESIS  OF  GENERAL  AXD  AXXUAL  COXFKIiEXCES. 


125 


in  and  for  the  government  of  the  Church,  which  it  never  was, 
since  government  implies  permanency,  and  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference— as  appears  from  its  call,  its  acts,  and  its  dissolution — 
was  an  organ,  not  for  government,  but  for  organization;  (3)  it 
unhistorically  cancels  the  government  of  the  Church  by  yearly 
assemblies  which  had  as  full  sovereignty  as  belonged  to  the 
General  Conferences  fi'om  1792  to  1808  inclusive,  and  to  the 
Christmas  Conference  itself,  since  the  Conference  of  1787  can- 
celed the  only  enactment  of  the  Christmas  Conference  which 
could  be  regarded  as  a  prohibitory  or  constitutional  limitation 
of  its  own  sovereignty — the  resolution  (Question  2)  of  obedience 
to  the  commands  of  Mr.  Wesley  in  matters  of  church  govern- 
ment; (4)  it  fails  to  appreciate  the  complementary  character 
and  necessary  coexistence  of  General  and  Annual  Conferences, 
and  gives  no  recognition  to  the  decisive  movement  and  moment 
in  the  history  of  the  Church  which  brought  both  species  of  Con- 
ferences simultaneously  into  legal  and  disciplinary  existence  and 
definition  in  1792. 

These  positions  are  simply  historical,  not  controversial. 
They  are  susceptible  of  much  more  abundant  corroboration 
than  we  have  space  to  give  them  here.^  The  relative  and  deci- 
sive facts  cannot  be  denied,  nor  their  significance  repudiated. 
The  controversies  of  later  years  have  absolutely  no  proper  place 
in  the  construction  of  this  history,  which  must  be  critically 
drawn  directly  aud  purely  from  the  sources  enumerated  in 
preceding  papers:  to  consider  these  controversies  is  a  violent 
infringement  of  universally  accepted  canons  of  historical  meth- 
od and  a  certain  index  of  more  or  less  vicious  results. 

The  truth  of  the  foregoing  conclusions  may  become  further 
evident  from  a  slightly  variant  angle  of  vision.  The  question, 
Was  the  Christmas  Conference  of  1784  a  General  Conference? 
is  identical  with  the  question,  Is  1784  the  date  of  the  beginning 
of  General  Conference  government  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church?  For,  if  the  Conference  of  1784  was  a  General  Confer- 
ence— the  first — it  follows  as  the  night  the  day  that  the  General 
Conference  of  1792 — the  second — was  its  successor.    And  if 

^The  writer  indulges  the  hope  that  he  may  soon  command  the  leisure  to 
incorporate  these  fuller  expositions  in  a  completely  revised  edition  of  his 
Constitutional  History,  fully  sustaining  the  main  positions  of  that  work,  orig- 
inally worked  out  from  the  sources  then  accessible. 


123 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


1792  was  the  successor  o£  1784,  then  the  legislative — nay,  the 
sovereign — authority  of  the  Conference  of  1784  covered  the  in- 
tervening period  until  the  meeting  of  its  successor  as  a  sovereign 
in  1792,  and  was  directly  transmitted,  whole  and  entire,  to  that 
sovereign  successor,  without  fracture,  change,  or  diminution,  by 
any  intervening  sovereign;  just  as  the  authority  of  1792  covered 
the  intervening  period  and  was  so  transmitted  to  1796,  and  so  in 
general  throughout  the  series  of  intervals  between  General  Con- 
ferences. The  annual  Disciplines  from  1785  to  1792  and  other 
sources  tell  plainly  the  story  of  the  electoral  and  legislative 
acts  of  that  other  sovereign — the  yearly  Conferences,  completely 
adequate  to  the  government  of  the  Church  without  the  aid  of  a 
General  Conference.  If  it  be  said  that  the  yearly  Conferences 
governed  by  virtue  of  a  charter  conferred  by  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, so  that  the  sovereignty  of  the  Conference  of  1784  really 
extended  to  the  meeting  of  its  successor  as  a  sovereign,  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  the  answer  is,  in  general,  that  such 
a  doctrine  clothes  the  Christmas  Conference  with  the  powers  of 
a  constitutional  convention — a  position  which  we  repudiate  as 
utterly  unhistorical — and,  in  particular,  that  every  element  of 
such  an  alleged  charter  was  alterable  by  the  chartered  body, 
which  entirely  deprives  the  legislation  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence of  the  nature  or  force  of  a  charter  or  constitution;  and, 
finally,  that  the  yearly  Conference  of  1787  repealed  the  only  act 
of  the  Christmas  Conference  that  could  be  construed  as  a  con- 
stitutional limitation  on  the  sovereignty  of  "  the  Conference  " — 
namely,  the  resolution  that  "during  the  life  of  the  Eev.  Mr. 
Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready 
in  matters  belonging  to  church-government  to  obey  his  commands." 
(Italics  ours.)  The  question  is  not  as  to  the  full  powers  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  during  the  period  of  its  session — which, 
so  far  as  we  know,  has  never  been  disputed — but  as  to  the  ex- 
tension of  its  enactments  over  the  period  until  the  meeting  of 
its  alleged  successor.  On  the  first  point,  the  powers  of  the 
Christmas  Conference  were  as  great  and  unlimited  as  the  pow- 
ers of  the  General  Conferences  from  1792  to  1808;  though  the 
truth  of  history  requires  us  to  add  the  very  material  statement 
that  in  this  respect  the  yearly  Conferences  from  1785  to  1791 
were  the  peers  of  the  Christmas  Conference  and  of  the  succeed- 
ing General  Conferences.    Thus,  on  the  second  point,  it  is  un- 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANXUAL  COXFEIiEXCES.  127 


deniable  that  the  Christmas  Conference  differed  in  toto  from  all 
General  Conferences.  Hence,  it  appears  once  more  that  it  was 
not  a  General  Conference,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  period 
from  1785  to  1792  was  a  period  of  the  government  of  the  Church, 
not  by  the  Christmas  Conference,  but  b}'  the  yearly  assemblies. 
Neither  by  those  who  called  it,  nor  by  those  who  composed  it, 
was  the  Christmas  Conference  designed  as  an  organ  of  govern- 
ment. It  was  called  together  simply  and  only  as  an  organizing 
body.  As  a  mass  meeting  designed  to  include  all  the  American 
itinerants,  who  had  been  meeting  in  Conference  since  1773, 
its  powers  were  in  the  nature  of  the  case  unlimited.  But 
all  these  powers  expired  with  its  adjournment — which  was 
indeed  its  dissolution — since  it  committed  the  whole  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  without  charter  or  constitution,  to  the  body 
described  as  "  the  Conference."  So  far  are  we  from  occupying 
the  position  ascribed  to  Mr.  Choate,^  that  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference was  a  constitutional  convention,  constructing  an  organi- 
zation, or  system  of  government,  which  the  General  Conferences 
could  not  alter  or  modify,  that  in  our  view  a  leading  and  de- 


say  "ascribed,"  relying  upon  the  accuracy  of  the  quotations  made  in 
a  recently  published  volume,  which  it  was  my  editorial  duty  to  read  both  in 
MS.  and  in  proof.  For,  though  I  have  had  for  many  years  several  copies  of 
the  work  ki.own  as  "The  Methodist  Church  Property  Case"  in  niy  posses- 
sion, I  have  not  as  yet,  for  reasons  assigned  in  the  text,  felt  it  my  duty  to 
read  it.  The  reasonings  of  litigants  in  courts  of  law  are  not  used  by  histo- 
rians for  the  construction  of  history  of  more  than  half  a  century  before;  on 
the  contrary,  that  history,  drawn  objectively  and  uncontroversially  from  its 
proper  contemporary  sources,  is  to  be  brought  forward  as  the  only  final  and 
competent  judge  to  determine  the  merits  of  controversies  whether  in  courts 
or  elsewhere.  I  shall  not  at  present  read  Mr.  Choate's  speech,  unless  a 
further  examination  of  criticisms  of  my  views  in  the  volume  referred 
to  should  o'lHze  me  to  do  so.  I  desire  to  add  that  I  have  purposely 
avoided  reading  controversial  matter  on  the  Christmas  Conference,  except 
such  as  has  necessarily  come  under  my  eye  editorially,  having  no  intention 
of  engaging  in  controversy  which  might  even  unconsciously  aflect  my  his- 
torical work,  and  believing  that  I  had  at  my  command  better  sources  for 
the  positive  construction  of  history,  which  has  been  my  only  aim.  The 
positions  in  the  Constitutional  History  were  worked  out  without  reference 
to  differences  of  opinion  which  I  now  know  to  exist,  and  were  taken  and  pub- 
lished before  they  were  developed.  After  going  over  again  and  again  the  his-  ' 
torical  foundations  upon  which  the  main  conclusions  of  that  book  rest,  I  stand 
by  them;  though  I  trust  that  a  new  edition  may  soon  afibrd  me  opportunity 
to  correct  errors  of  detail  which  my  further  studies  have  revealed. 


128 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


cisive  reason  for  denying  to  the  Christmas  Conference  the  title 
of  a  General  Conference  is  that  its  enactments  were  freely  modi- 
fied by  the  yearly  Conferences.  So  far  was  its  sovereignty  from 
being  constitutionally  projected  over  General  Conferences  and 
the  entire  Church  until  1844  and  the  present  day,  that  the  true 
state  of  the  case  is  that  its  authority  was  not  so  much  as  pro- 
jected over  the  yearly  Conferences  of  1785  to  1791  until  the 
meeting  of  its  so-called  successor.  And  here  for  the  present 
may  be  dismissed  this  aspect  of  the  case. 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  inquire  on  what  grounds,  and  in 
what  sense,  the  Christmas  Conference  may  properly  be  described 
as  a  convention;  though  it  called  itself  neither  a  convention  nor 
a  General  Conference,  one  of  its  presidents,  on  publishing  its 
Minutes,  styling  it  simply  "  a  Conference,"  which  continued  to 
be  its  designation  on  the  title-page  of  the  Disciplines  down  to 
1792,  when,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  its 
law  book  bore  on  its  face  the  notice  that  it  was  "  revised  and 
aijproved"  by  a  body  styled  "the  General  Conference,"  whose 
functions,  likewise  for  the  first  time,  were  defined  and  described 
in  the  law  book  itself.  We  trust  that  we  do  not  lack  the  breadth 
and  the  fairness  to  appreciate  the  position  of  those  who  are 
able  to  reach  a  short,  simple,  and  easy  solution  of  this  prob- 
lem. The  Christmas  Conference  exercised  the  supreme  powers 
of,  and  was  identical  in  membership  with,  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1792,  and,  though  there  were  some  subsequent  limita- 
tions of  membership,  this  equality  practically  continues  through 
all  the  General  Conferences  down  to  1808.  Moreover,  it  is  not 
unusual  to  designate  the  General  Conferences  from  1792  to 
1808  as  conventions,  or  as  General  Conferences  with  "conven- 
tional "  powers,  since  there  was  no  limitation  upon  the  authority 
of  these  bodies.  In  particular,  the  General  Conference  of  1808, 
which  created  the  delegated  General  Conference,  issued  its 
charter  of  perpetuity  to  the  episcopacy  as  against  alteration  or 
abolition  by  the  delegated  body,  and  ordained  the  "  constitution," 
is  often  called  a  "  convention."  Bishop  Soule,  the  author  of  the 
constitution,  so  designated  it  in  a  speech  before  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  There  were,  it  is  argued,  five  of  these  conven- 
tions, with  powers  as  great  as  those  of  the  Christmas  Conference, 
and  it  is  mere  strife  about  words  whether  we  call  the  Christ- 
mas Conference  a  convention  with  General  Conference  powers. 


GEXESIS  OF  GEXERAL  AXD  AXXUAL  COXFEREXCES.  129 


or  the  Coufereuces  of  1792-1S08  General  Couferences  witli  con- 
veutional  powers.  These  six  bodies  were  thus  identical  iu  their 
supreme  powers,  and  the  difference  between  the  Conference  of 
1784  and  the  other  five  is  the  difference  between  tueedledum  and 
tireedledee.  Such  seems  to  be  the  inevitable  conclusion,  and  we 
do  not  wonder  that  this  short  and  easy  solution  by  its  very  sim- 
plicity commends  itself  to  the  minds  of  many  as  summing  up 
the  essentials  of  the  problem  and  ending  the  questions  at  issue. 
But  the  factors  which  enter  into  the  reconstruction  of  an  his- 
torical j)icture,  or  the  revivification  of  an  historical  past,  are 
often  very  comities,  and  more  careful  inquirers  might  regard 
this  simplicity,  not  as  raising  a  presumption  of  truth,  but,  con- 
trariwise, as  suggesting  a  suspicion  of  omission  or  error.  If 
the  problem  is  so  simple,  it  is  difiicult  to  see  how  any  difference 
of  view  could  have  arisen. 

Let  us  indulge  a  preliminary  examination  of  this  simple  so- 
lution. The  first  thing  that  must  strike  even  a  casual  observer 
is  that  the  Conference  of  1784  in  this  series  of  six  is  an  isolated 
phenomenon.  The  five  General  Conferences  of  1792-1808  are 
bound  together  in  a  continuous  governmental  structure  from 
which  the  Conference  of  1784  is  excluded.  The  legal  links  of 
unbroken  sovereignty  which  stretch  from  any  one  of  these  five 
to  its  successor,  and  bind  them  all  in  one  organic  whole,  do  not 
stretch  from  1784  to  1792,  and  thus  include  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference in  that  organized  whole  of  settled  and  unbroken  General 
Conference  supremacy  or  sovereignty.  It  is  not  that  the  period 
from  1784  to  1792  is  eight  years  instead  of  four.  The  term 
"  Quadrennial,"  so  far  as  it  carries  only  a  notion  of  time,  exclu- 
sive of  that  of  permanency  and  succession,  is  a  mere  accident  of 
the  situation.  If  the  Christmas  Conference  had  governed  the 
Church  from  1784  to  1792,  as  the  General  Conference  of  1792 
governed  it  from  1792  to  179G,  there  might  be  small  question  as 
to  its  admission  to  the  category  of  General  Conferences.  But 
an  isolated  General  Conference  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

Thus  we  are  brought  around  in  sight  of  the  fact  that  while 
the  generalization  upon  which  the  "simple  solution  "  is  found- 
ed is  the  truth,  it  is  only  half  the  truth,  omitting  a  very  essen- 
tial element.  It  is  undoubted  that  all  six  of  the  Conferences 
under  consideration  were  sovereigns,  but  between  the  first  and 
second  there  stretched  a  line  of  eight  other  sovereigns,  just  as 
9 


130 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


royal  as  the  Christmas  Conference  before  them  and  as  the  five 
General  Conferences  after  them.  In  1792  this  other  sovereign 
became  extinct,  and  obtruded  no  royal  reversals  and  vetoes  upon 
the  Quadrennial  sovereigns  from  1792  to  1808.  Let  us  here  re- 
mind ourselves  that  it  was  not  that  yearly  Conferences  ruled 
in  a  limited,  even  if  necessarily  inconvenient,  fashion  from 
1784  to  1792;  but  that,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence committed  to  "the  Conference"  the  government  of  the 
Church;  that  "the  Conference"  repeatedly  annulled  the  acts  of 
the  Christmas  Conference;  that  in  1787  it  abrogated  the  reso- 
lution of  submission  to  Mr.  Wesley,  and  rejected  his  nominees 
for  the  superinteudency,  thus  assertiug  the  autonomy  of  the 
American  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  that  in  1789  and  1790 
it  created  and  empowered  the  "  Council "  as  a  central  organ  of 
general  administration  and  government;  and  that  in  1792  it 
called  the  General  Conference  of  1792  together,  thus  supersed- 
ing and  abolishing  the  Council,  which  had  proved  a  failure  as 
an  organ  of  administration.  For,  says  Snethen,  "the  instant 
a  General  Conference  was  acceded  to,  the  Council  was  super- 
seded." 

We  may  now  recall  the  results  of  our  examination  into  the 
anterior  connections — the  origin — of  the  Christmas  Conference, 
since  its  posterior  connections  with  the  government  of  the  Church 
are  sufficiently  evident.  But  these  results  will  best  pass  under 
review  in  connection  with  a  formal  enumeration  and  presenta- 
tion of  the  grounds  on  which  the  Christmas  Conference  may 
properly  be  styled  a  convention — with  or  without  the  prefix 
"  extraordinary,"  which  certainly  has  an  eminently  fit  descrip- 
tive use  in  this  connection,  and  is  not  wholly  devoid  of  legal  or 
governmental  significance.  These  grounds  are  four,  of  which 
the  third  is  chief  and  might  be  siif&cient  without  the  others: 

(1)  Its  call — extraordinary,  if  one  please; 

(2)  Its  self -derived  and  self-sufficient  powers,  as  an  intended 
mass  meeting  of  "  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent"; 

(3)  Its  creation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church; 

(4)  Its  dissolution  when  this  creative  work  was  done. 

1.  The  Extraordinary  Call. — The  reader  will  kindly  review  in 
this  connection  the  results  of  our  inquiries  in  Chapter  VIII. 
Fortunately  the  state  of  the  evidence  is  such  as  to  enable  us  to 
mark  the  precise  moments  of  the  conception  and  birth  of  the 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES. 


131 


Christmas  Conference.  Tliis  positive  evidence  of  the  origin  of 
the  body,  establishing  a  definite  beginning  and  history,  of  itself 
excludes  mere  theories  and  hypotheses  for  which  proof  ad  rem 
is  lacking.  We  know  that  when  Dr.  Coke  arrived  in  New  York, 
Mr.  Dickins,  so  far  from  receiving  the  impression  from  the 
doctor's  communications  that  Mr.  Wesley  designed  the  meeting 
of  a  Conference  to  pass  on  his  plan,  pressed  Coke  "earnestly 
to  make  it  public,  because,  as  he  most  justly  argued,  Mr.  Wes- 
ley had  determined  the  point."  We  know  that  at  Philadelphia 
Dr.  Coke  did  o^jen  "to  the  society  our  new  plan  of  church-gov- 
ernment." We  know  that  in  his  circular  letter  Mr.  Wesley  de- 
cisively and  definitively  said,  "  I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Francis  Asbury  to  be  joint  Superintendents  over 
our  brethren  in  North  America."  We  know  that  when  this  ap- 
pointment was  communicated  to  Asbury,  who  was  then  holding 
the  office  of  general  assistant  by  Conference  election,  with  Mr. 
Wesley's  confirmation  thereof,  his  "answer  then  was,  if  the 
preachers  unanimously  choose  me,  I  shall  not  act  in  the  ca- 
pacity I  have  hitherto  done  by  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment,"  de- 
clining office  on  the  terms  tendered.  We  know  that  Asbury 
had,  in  expectation  of  Dr.  Coke  and  his  embassy,  "called  to- 
gether [at  Barratt's]  a  considerable  number  of  the  preachers  to 
form  a  council,"  and  had  informed  Mr.  Wesley's  delegate  that 
"if  they  [the  aforesaid  preachers]  were  of  opinion  that  it  would 
be  expedient  immediately  to  call  a  conference,  it  should  he  done." 
(Italics  ours.)  We  know  that  these  preachers,  about  fifteen  in 
number,  "  were  accordingly  called,  and,  after  debate,  were  unan- 
imously of  opinion  that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to  call  a 
conference  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  continent,"  and 
that  the  topic  before  these  preachers  when  they  made  this  call 
was  "  the  design  of  organizing  the  Methodists  into  an  Independ- 
ent Episcopal  Church."    (Italics  ours.) 

This  is  the  positive,  precise,  essentially  complete  account  of  the 
actual  historical  inception  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  derived 
exclusively  from  the  absolutely  contemporary  witness  of  Dr.  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury.  There  is  no^\  here  a  trace  of  evidence  that  the 
idea  of  the  meeting  of  such  a  body  had  entered  any  human  brain 
before  it  took  shape  in  that  of  Asbury.  To  assert  for  it  any 
other  origin  in  the  face  of  such  evidence  is  impossible  without 
disregard  of  the  simplest  canons  of  historical  testimony. 


132 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


Undoubtedly  Mr.  Wesley  gave  the  acts  of  tlie  Christmas  Con- 
ference his  full  and  free  approval  when  the  Minutes  of  the  body 
were  laid  before  him  by  Dr.  Coke  on  his  return  to  London  in 
the  following  year.  So  far  as  his  concurrence  and  indorsement 
were  necessary  to  the  finality  and  legitimacy  of  the  enactments 
of  the  Christmas  Conference,  the  body  had  them  to  the  fullest 
extent,  and  any  supposititious  shadow  of  illegitimacy  regarded 
as  attaching  to  the  birth  of  American  Methodism  is  entirely  re- 
moved thereby.  This  was  an  easy  matter  for  Mr.  Wesley,  since 
the  Christmas  Conference  followed  his  directions  as  to  the  ordi- 
nations, etc.  But  Mr.  Wesley's  unqualified  indorsement  after  the 
event  is  quite  a  different  thing  from  his  positive  inclusion  before 
the  event,  of  the  Conference  as  a  part  of  his  plan  for  the  organi- 
zation or  government  of  the  Church.  No  pertinent  evidence  of 
this  positive  inclusion,  so  far  as  we  know,  has  ever  been  ad- 
duced, nor,  so  far  as  our  reading  extends  in  the  proper  quarters 
for  its  discovery  if  it  exists,  is  addacible.  Indeed,  the  positive 
evidence  we  have  of  the  actual  call  of  the  body  seems  once  for 
all  to  exclude  the  possibility  of  evidence  tracing  the  body  to  an- 
other and  distinct  origin. 

It  has  been  attempted  to  find  evidence  of  Mr.  Wesley's  pro- 
vision for  the  Christmas  Conference  in  the  concluding  sentences 
of  his  circular  letter.  In  order  to  carry  the  origination  of  the 
body  back  from  Mr.  Asbury  and  the  preachers  at  Barratt's  to 
Mr.  Wesley,  however,  not  only  is  it  necessary  to  set  aside  the 
direct  and  conclusive  evidence  already  adduced — which  a  mere 
conjecture  or  presumption  would  not  warrant  us  in  doing — but, 
considering  the  circular  letter  alone,  we  should  have  to  show, 
not  simply  that  the  action  at  Barratt's  and  at  Baltimore  was 
not  in  contradiction  of  the  circular  letter,  but  that  it  was  de- 
ducible  from  it.  Logicians  are  familiar  Avith  the  distinction 
between  a  proposition  which  is  deducible  from  another,  and  a 
proposition  which,  while  it  does  not  contradict,  cannot  be  in- 
ferred from  another.^  Now  we  have  no  interest  in  denying 
that  the  action  at  Barratt's  and  Baltimore  did  not  contradict 
Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  since  he  fully  approved  what  was  done  im- 
mediately afterwards;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  action  taken  by 
the  Council  at  Barratt's  was  not  suggested  by,  and  is  not  dedu- 
cible from,  Mr.  Wesley's  letter. 


Compare  a  problem  set  in  Tigert's  Logic,  p.  190. 


GEXESIS  OF  GENERAL  AXD  ASXrAL  COXFEREyCES.  133 


Let  us  analyze  the  letter.  When  properly  printed  it  is  com- 
posed of  six  numbered  paragraphs.  Its  general  topic,  it  will 
become  evident,  is  a  defense  of  Mr.  Wesley's  course  in  ordain- 
ing a  superintendent  and  elders  for  America.  The  contents  of 
the  paragraphs  may  be  summarized  as  follows: 

(1)  The  providential  separation  of  the  provinces  of  North 
America  from  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the 
mother-country  is  pointed  out,  and  Mr.  Wesley's  willingness  to 
give  desired  advice  in  this  peculiar  situation  indicated; 

(2)  Mr.  Wesley's  long-cherished  conviction  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  have  the  same  right  to  ordain  is  stated;  and  his  re- 
fusal hitherto  to  exercise  his  right  in  England  explained  by  his 
determination  not  to  violate  the  established  order  of  the  national 
Church; 

(3)  The  difPerence  between  England  and  North  America  is 
pointed  out:  since  in  America  there  are  no  bishops  having 
jurisdiction,  and  there  is  scant  provision  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  sacraments,  Mr.  Wesley  declares  his  scruples 
at  an  end,  and  conceives  himself  at  full  liberty  to  ordain  for 
this  field; 

( 4 )  He  accordingly  prepares  and  advises  the  use  of  a  liturgy  and 
appoints  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  be  joint  superintendents,  and 
Kichard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  to  act  as  elders;  so  far  as 
appears,  these  appointments  being  definitive — Coke,  Whatcoat, 
and  Yasey  having  been  ordained  and  furnished  with  parchments; 

(5)  Mr.  Wesley  expresses  his  willingness  to  embrace  any 
more  rational  and  scriptural  way,  if  pointed  out,  of  providing 
pastors  for  these  poor  sheep  of  the  wilderness;  and 

(6)  It  seems  to  him  in  conclusion  that  a  way  has  been  sug- 
gested which  some  might  consider  more  regular  and  rational, 
and  he  proceeds  to  give  his  reasons  why  he  did  not  adopt  it 
(we  quote  the  paragraph  in  full): 

(6)  It  has  indeed  been  proposed,  to  desire  the  English  Bishops,  to  ordain 
part  of  our  preachers  for  America.  But  to  this  I  object,  1.  I  desired  the 
Bishop  of  London,  to  ordain  only  one;  but  could  not  prevail:  2.  If  they 
consented,  we  know  the  slowness  of  their  proceedings;  but  the  matter  ad- 
mits of  no  delay.  3.  If  they  would  ordain  them  now,  they  would  likewise 
expect  to  govern  them.  And  how  grievously  would  this  intangle  us?  4.  As 
our  American  brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled  both  from  the  State,  and 
irom  the  English  Hierarchy,  we  dare  not  intangle  them  again,  either  with 
the  one  or  the  other.   They  are  now  at  full  liberty,  simply  to  follow  the 


134 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


scriptures  and  the  primitive  church.  And  we  judge  it  best  that  they  sliould 
stand  fast  in  that  liberty,  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them  free.^ 

It  is  clearly  evident  that  the  theme  of  this  letter  from  begin- 
ning to  end  is  the  justification  of  the  ordinations  for  America, 
and  the  clear  and  rightful  separation  of  the  American  Metho- 
dists from  the  English  Establishment,  since  they  were  no  longer 
subjects  of  the  English  state.  This  was  the  liberty  wherewith 
God  had  so  strangely  made  them  free,  and  wherein  they  were  to 
stand  fast.  In  particular,  the  sixth  paragraph  states  four  rea- 
sons for  declining  to  ask  ordination  of  the  English  bishops  for 
the  American  preachers,  and  the  last  two  sentences  are  part  of 
that  paragraph  and  of  the  fourth  reason.^  We  reach  therefore 
our  former  conclusion,  in  Chapter  VIII.,  that  it  is  impossible  to 
deduce  authority  for  the  Christmas  Conference  from  the  circu- 
lar letter,  and  that  all  that  can  be  said  is  that  the  letter  contains 
no  prohibition  from  Mr.  Wesley  of  such  a  gathering.  We  are 
not  sure,  however,  but  that  we  have  been  logically  too  liberal  in 
allowing  that  while  authority  for  the  Christmas  Conference  is 
not  deducible  from  the  circular  letter,  the  action  at  Baltimore 
is  not  contradictory  of  that  document.  For  to  say  of  two  pi'opo- 
sitions  even  that  they  are  not  contradictory  is  to  imply  that 
they  have  the  same  matter;  but  in  this  case  there  is  no  connec- 
tion between  the  subject  of  the  circular  letter — the  American 
ordinations — and  the  organization  of  a  Conference — General  or 
other — for  the  government  of  the  American  Church.  There  is 
simply  no  point  of  contact  or  relation  between  the  circular  let- 
ter and  the  Christmas  Conference. 

We  have  elsewhere  said  that  Mr.  Asbury  interposed  the  Con- 
ference as  a  barrier  between  himself  and  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  That  he  did  this,  and  that  he  did  it  without  wicked 
rebellion,  and  without  the  desire  or  intention  of  prostituting 
power  for  personal  ends,  but  with  wise  and  far-sighted  states- 

^This  version  is  taken  literally,  following  spelling,  punctuation,  capitali- 
zation, italics,  from  a  printed  copy  of  the  circular  letter  inserted  in  an  orig- 
inal and  complete  copy  of  the  Sunday  Service  and  Discipline  of  1784,as  issued 
by  Dr.  Coke  in  1785. 

^  In  the  Minutes  of  1813,  and  in  the  letter  as  often  printed,  there  is  a  dash 
after  the  period  following  the  word  "other,"  separating  the  last  two  sen- 
tences as  if  they  were  a  general  conclusion  to  the  letter.  But  this  punctua- 
tion is  incorrect:  it  occurs  neither  in  the  Minutes  of  1795,  nor  in  the  printed 
copy  inserted  in  the  original  Discipline  of  1784,  from  which  I  have  quoted. 


GEKESTS  OF  GENERAL  AND  AXNT'AL  COXFERKXCES.  135 


manship,  ought  to  be  evident,  and  is  abundantly  evident,  from 
the  utterances  of  Mr.  Asbury  himself.    As  we  have  seen,  he  was 
"shocked"  when  informed  of  the  intentions  of  Coke,  Whatcoat, 
and  Vasey  in  coming  to  America.    His  answer  then  was  a  point- 
blank  refusal  to  act  as  joint  superintendent  by  Mr.  Wesley's 
appointment.    The  unanimous  choice  of  the  preachers  could 
alone  induce  Asbury  to  accept  office,  and  this  independence  of 
his  led  immediately  and  necessarily  to  the  calling  of  the  Con- 
ference.   Again:  of  the  passage  of  the  minute  of  submission  to 
Mr.  AVesley  at  the  Conference  itself,  he  declared  in  179G:  "I 
never  approved  of  that  binding  minute.    I  did  not  think  it 
practical  expediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley,  at  three  thousand 
miles  distance,  in  all  matters  relative  to  church  government." 
But  Mr.  Wesley  did  think  it  "practical  expediency,"  and  just 
here  the  issue  was  joined  between  him  and  Mr.  Asbury,  who 
adds  the  oft-quoted  words  with  regard  to  the  binding  minute, 
"I  was  mute  and  modest  when  it  passed,  and  I  was  mute  Avhen 
it  was  expunged."    One  final  utterance  of  Mr.  Asbury's  will  put 
in  a  clear  light  why  he  refused  office  on  Mr.  Wesley's  appoint- 
ment; why  he  demanded  unanimous  election  by  the  preachers, 
that  he  might  interpose  their  authority  between  himself  and 
the  great  man  over  the  sea;  why  he  was  mute  and  modest  at  the 
passage  and  at  the  repeal  of  the  minute  of  submission.    In  his 
letter  to  the  Eev.  Joseph  Benson  in  1816,  a  few  months  before 
his  (Asbury's)  death,  Mr.  Asbury  says: 

T  can  truly  say  for  one,  that  the  greatest  affliction  and  sorrow  of  my  life 
was  that  our  dear  father  [Mr.  Wesley],  from  the  time  of  the  Eevolution  to 
his  death,  grew  more  and  more  jealou?  of  myself  and  the  whole  American 
Connection;  that  it  appeared  we  had  lost  his  confidence  almost  entirely. 
But  he  rigidly  contended  for  a  special  and  independent  right  of  governing 
the  chief  minister  or  ministers  of  our  order,  wliich,  in  our  judgment,  went 
not  only  to  put  him  out  of  office,  hut  to  remove  him  j'rom  the  Continent  to 
elsewhere,  ttiat  our  father  saw  fit;  and  that,  notwithstanding  our  constitu- 
tion and  the  right  of  electing  every  Church-ofiicer,  and  more  especially  onr 
Superintendent,  yet  we  are  told,  '*  Not  till  after  the  death  of  Mr.  Wesley  " 
our  constitution  could  have  its  full  operation.  For  many  years  before  this 
time  we  lived  in  peace,  and  trusted  in  the  confidence  and  friendship  of  each 
other.  Bat  after  the  Revolution,  we  were  called  upon  to  give  a  printed  ob- 
ligation, which  here  follows,  and  which  could  not  be  dispensed  with — it 
must  be:  "During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  our- 
selves his  sons  in  the  gospel;  ready,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church-gov- 
ernment, to  oliey  his  commands;  and  we  do  engage,  after  his  death,  to  do 
every  thing  that  we  judge  consistent  with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America 


136 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


and  the  political  interest  of  the  States,  to  preserve  and  promote  our  union 
■with  the  ]Methodists  in  Europe." 

Thus  we  conclude  that  because  the  Christmas  Conference  was 
a  called  body,  unexpectedly  intercalated  between  the  regular 
sessions  of  the  American  Conference  for  1784  and  1785;  be- 
cause it  was  not  part  of  Mr.  Wesley's  "  plan  "  for  the  organiza- 
tion or  government  of  the  Church;  because  it  was  not  called  by 
Dr.  Coke  or  Mr.  Asbury,  or  both  of  them  together,  acting  inde- 
pendently and  officially;  because  it  was  called  by  a  Council  of 
preachers,  brought  together  by  Asbury  to  "form  a  council"  at 
Bavratt's  Chapel,  Delaware,  November  14, 1784,  Asbury  initiat- 
ing and  Coke  concurring — this  Council  "  after  debate  "  being 
unanimously  of  opinion  that  it  would  be  best  immediately  to 
call  a  "  conference  of  all  the  traveling  preachers  on  the  conti- 
nent " ;  because  the  purpose  of  calling  the  Conference  was  to 
have  it  joass  on  "  the  design  of  organizing  the  Methodists  into 
an  Independent  Episcopal  Church,"  i.  e.,  to  take  action  on  "  Mr. 
Wesley's  plan,"  involving  a  decision  particularly  upon  the  ap- 
pointment and  ordination  of  superintendents — the  Conference 
deciding  whether  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  and  ordination  of 
Dr.  Coke  was  complete  and  final  in  itself,  or  whether  it  needed 
their  consent  and  confirmation  before  he  could  act  as  a  joint 
superintendent  among  them,  and  Mr,  Asbury  refusing  ordina- 
tion as  Mr.  Wesley's  appointee  without  the  unanimous  election 
of  the  preachers;  because  of  all  these  circumstances  of  its  ori- 
gin and  call — its  extraordinary  call — differentiating  it  from  any 
General  Conference  that  ever  met,  we  say  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference is  properly  called  a  convention  —  an  "extraordinary" 
convention,  if  one  prefers  it. 

2.  It  is  properly  called  a  convention  because  it  was  a  self -cre- 
ated body,  with  self-derived  and  self-sufficient  authority.  This 
point  need  not  long  detain  us.  The  authority  of  the  Christmas 
Conference  did  not  flow  to  it  from  Mr.  Wesley,  from  the  Ameri- 
can Conference,  from  Dr.  Coke  or  Mr.  Asbury,  or  both  of  them, 
nor  from  the  Council  at  Barratt's,  nor  from  any  constituency 
of  laity  behind  it.  It  was  a  mass  meeting  of  all  the  American 
itinerants,  i.  e.,  of  all  those  who  had  exercised  the  functions  of 
government  or  legislation  over  the  Methodist  Societies  of  the 
continent,  who  freely  met  on  the  call  of  some  of  their  own  num- 
ber, specially  convened  as  a  Council,  Mr.  Asbury  initiating  and 


GENESIS  OF  GENEBAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  137 


Dr.  Coke  approving.  Of  course  it  did  not  derive  its  powers 
from  this  Council,  a  lesser  body  than  itself,  though  it  assembled 
on  the  call  of  the  preachers  who  had  come  together  at  the  Quar- 
terly Meeting  at  Barratt's.  As  a  mass  convention  intended  to 
embrace  all  the  itinerants,  its  powers  were  self-derived  and  self- 
sufficient. 

The  self-derivation  and  self-sufficiency  of  the  powers  of  the 
self-created  body  are  evident,  also,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
as  well  as  from  the  circumstances  of  its  historical  origin,  with 
which  we  are  now  so  familiar.  The  American  preachers  assem- 
bled "to  constitute  themselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church";  the 
change  suggested  by  Mr.  Wesley  "  could  not  take  efPect  until 
adopted  by  us,"  says  William  Watters,  who  was  present,  "  which 
was  done  in  a  deliberate,  formal  manner,  at  a  conference  called 
for  that  purpose";  they  were,  as  distinct  from  Mr.  Wesley,  to 
satisfy  themselves  of  the  validity  of  Dr.  Coke's  episcojDal  ordina- 
tion, and  confirm  or  reject  it,  although  the  act,  so  far  as  Mr.  Wes- 
ley was  concerned,  was  complete  and  final;  in  particular,  the 
preachers  were  called  upon  to  give  Mi*.  Asbury  a  "unanimous 
election  "  to  the  joint  superinteudency,  as  a  conditio  sine  qua  non 
of  his  ordination,  he  flatly  refusing  to  accept  ordination  from 
Dr.  Coke  by  Mr.  Wesley's  sole  appointment.  Now,  such  a  body, 
self-created  and  appealed  to,  with  these  ends  in  view,  recognized 
by  Mr.  Asbury  as  giving  him  a  title  to  office  which  Mr.  Wesley 
could  not  give,  and  affording  him  protection  in  office  against 
Mr.  Wesley  himself,  was  necessarily  a  coordinate,  independent, 
and  self-sufficient  source  of  power.  For  these  reasons,  in  the 
second  place,  the  Christmas  Conference  is  properly  called  a 
convention. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  the  Christmas  Conference  is  properly  called 
a  convention — an  organizing  convention — because  it  created  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  In  an  unshared  and  unique  sense, 
the  Christmas  Conference,  thus  called  and  constituted,  created 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  When  the  Conference  met, 
this  Church  did  not  exist:  when  it  adjourned,  episcopacy  and 
the  other  orders  of  the  ministry,  sacraments,  liturgy,  and  Disci- 
pline, had  all  been  secured  and  provided.  It  thus  stands  exte- 
rior to  the  Church  as  an  instrument  of  organization,  and  not 
within  it  as  an  organ  of  government.  Neither  those  who  called 
it,  nor  those  who  composed  it,  designed  it  as  an  organ  of  gov- 


138 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


ernment.  Now,  a  General  Conference,  whether  of  the  original, 
unlimited  order,  or  of  the  subsequent  restricted  and  delegated 
class,  is  the  creature  of  the  Church.  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  due  time  called  into  existence  such  a  body,  unknown 
in  the  previous  history  of  Methodism,  for  its  own  government, 
to  meet  the  new  conditions  and  exigencies  of  ecclesiastical  regi- 
men in  America.  But  since  the  Christmas  Conference  was  the 
creator  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it  could  not  have 
been  its  creature.  By  this  token  we  are  directed  at  once  to  its 
extraordinary  and  unique  character  as  an  organizing  conven- 
tion: to  designate  such  an  organizing  or  creative  body  a  con- 
vention is  a  correct  use  of  language.  It  differs  from  every 
General  Conference  in  this  capital  respect:  Every  General  Con- 
ference is  the  creature  of  the  Church;  but  the  Church  is  the 
creature  of  the  Christmas  Conference. 

Turning  once  more  to  the  Minutes  of  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, as  the  primary  official  and  contemporaneous  source,  the 
oiitstanding  and  overshadowing  fact,  contained  in  this  record, 
subordinating  or  absorbing  all  others,  is  that  the  body  trans- 
formed the  Methodist  Societies  in  America  into  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.^  Asbury,  for  obvious  reasons,  is  careful  to 
record  that  in  the  Christmas  Conference  the  debates  were  free, 
and  all  things  were  determined  by  a  majority  of  votes.^  "We 
will  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,"  say  the  members 
of  the  Christmas  Conference,  in  the  third  answer  of  their  offi- 
cial Minutes,  "  under  the  direction  of  Superintendents,  Elders, 
Deacons,  and  Helpers,  according  to  the  Forms  of  Ordination 

IT  hnve  before  me  a  copy  of  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780,  entitled,  "Min- 
utes of  Several  Conversations  between  the  Reverend  Mr.  John  and  Charles 
Wesley,  and  Others.  From  the  Year  1744,  to  the  Year  1780.  London :  Printed 
by  J.  Paramorp,  at  the  Foundry,  Moorfields."  As  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  this 
was  the  last  edition  of  the  Large  Minutes  published  before  the  organization 
of  American  Methodism  into  a  Church.  If  so,  it  is  the  document  used  by 
Coke  and  Asbury  as  the  basis  of  their  preparation  of  the  Discipline  adopted 
by  the  Christmas  Conference.  Dr.  Robert  Emory,  in  his  History  of  the 
Discipline,  starts  off  on  the  wrong  foot,  inasmuch  as  he  compares  the  first 
Discipline  with  the  Large  Minutes  of  1789,  printed  in  1791,  which  seems  to 
have  been  his  only  copy.  Lack  of  space  forbids  a  detailed  comparison  in 
the  t«xt  above;  but  I  hope  to  publish  an  exact  comparison  between  the 
original  of  the  lirst  Discipline  and  the  Large  Minutes  of  1780,  that  our  gov- 
ernmental history  may  be  placed  upon  the  proper  foundation. 

s  Journal,  i.  376. 


GEXESIS  OF  OEXERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  139 


annexed  to  our  Liturgy,  and  the  Form  of  Discipline  set  f  ortli  in 
these  Minutes."  This  answer  (1)  enumerates  the  grades  of  the 
ministry  of  the  new  Church;  (2)  specifies  its  already  printed 
forms  of  ordination;  (3)  refers  to  its  printed  Liturgy,  whose 
contents  have  already  been  accurately  enumerated  in  these 
pages;  and  (4)  styles  "these  Minutes"  a  "Form  of  Discipline." 
This  primary  official  and  contemporaneous  record,  let  it  be 
noted,  though  supported  by  all  the  other  sources,  stands  in  its 
own  sufficiency,  decisive  of  what  was  done.  "Following  the 
counsel  of  Mr.  John  Wesley,"  say  the  Minutes  published  in 
1795,  "who  recommended  the  Episcopal  mode  of  church  gov- 
ernment, we  thought  it  best  to  become  an  Episcopal  Church," 
etc.  Thus  the  orders  and  sacraments  provided  by  Mr.  Wesley 
were  freely  accepted  by  the  Christmas  Conference;  the  election 
of  one  of  the  joint  superintentendents  appointed  and  already 
ordained  by  Wesley  (Dr.  Coke),  and  the  election  and  ordina- 
tion of  the  other  joint  superintendent  api^ointed  by  Wesley  (Mr. 
Asbury),  with  that  of  elders  and  deacons,  followed;  and  the  first 
American  "  Episcopal  Church  "  was  organized,  and  began  its  al- 
most unparalleled  mission  of  continental  conquest. 

The  exact  method  of  this  organization  deserves  notice.  In  the 
American  Societies  there  already  existed  two  marks  of  a  Chris- 
tian Church,  (1)  congregations  of  faithful  men,  and  (2)  the 
preaching  of  the  pure  word  of  God.  Mr.  Wesley  designed  to 
add  the  other  two,  (3)  orders,  or  an  ordained  ministry;  and  (4) 
the  sacraments  instituted  by  our  Lord,  thus  completing  the  or- 
ganization of  a  Christian  Church.  But  the  bearers  of  these 
orders  and  sacraments  from  Mr.  Wesley  were  not  accepted 
without  the  consent  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  called  for 
this  purpose.  The  Americans,  however,  were  in  this  situation. 
By  the  final  rejection  of  the  Fluvanna  action — proceeding  to 
the  extent  of  the  reordination  of  Fluvanna  men — the  American 
Methodists  had  set  aside  self-originated  presbyterial  ordination 
once  for  all.  However  rational  and  scriptural  the  Fluvanna 
method,  followed  in  principle  by  the  British  Conference  in 
1836,  appears  to  us,  it  had  been  aborted  and  suppressed  by  the 
American  preachers.  While  the  Christmas  Conference,  there- 
fore, passed  upon  the  validity  of  Mr.  Wesley's  ordinations,  and 
elected  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  to  the  joint  superintendency, 
the  Americans,  according  to  their  own  history  and  princii^les^ 


140 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


were  shut  up  to  the  acceptance  of  the  orders  and  sacraments 
provided  by  Mr.  Wesley — else  they  must  continue  without  both. 
If  the  question  is  asked,  Did  our  episcopacy — or  ministerial  or- 
ders generally — originate  with  Mr.  Wesley  or  with  the  Christ- 
mas Conference?  the  answer  is,  With  both.  Neither,  in  the 
event,  exercised  power  without  the  other.  Wesley  did  appoint 
both  the  joint  superintendents,  and  ordain  and  commission  one, 
doubtless  regarding  his  action  as  complete.  But  Mr.  Asbury 
and  the  Americans  thought  otherwise.  Mr.  Asbury  refused 
appointment  and  ordination  without  the  election  of  the  preach- 
ers, and  this  led  to  Dr.  Coke's  election  as  well  as  his  own,  the 
Conference  independently  confirming  Mr.  Wesley's  acts.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Conference  freely  elected,  but  had  it  de- 
clined Mr.  Wesley's  provision,  the  Americans,  according  to 
their  own  principles,  would  have  remained  without  orders  and 
sacraments.  The  elected  superintendents  were,  of  course,  made 
amenable  to  the  Conference. 

4.  The  Christmas  Conference  is  properly  styled  a  convention,  and 
not  a  General  Conference,  because  tvhen  it  adjourned  it  dissolved. 
This  point  need  not  be  elaborated.  An  isolated  General  Con- 
ference, as  we  have  seen,  is  an  impossible  conception  in  Metho- 
dist Church  government.  The  General  Conference  of  1792  was 
in  no  sense  the  successor  of  the  Christmas  Conference.  The 
organizing  convention  committed  the  supreme  government  of  the 
Church  to  "the  Conference,"  which  exercised  sovereignty  until 
it  called  the  General  Conference  into  existence  in  1792.  When 
the  Christmas  Conference  adjourned  it  ceased  to  exist. 

Let  us  sum  up: 

1.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  not  a  convention  in  the  sense 
of  being  composed  of  delegates  of  the  people  called  Methodists 
expressly  chosen  for  constitutional  purposes,  whose  action  could 
not,  therefore,  be  revised  by  "the  Conference,"  in  its  yearly 
meetings,  or  by  the  General  Conference.  The  notion  of  the 
actual,  representative,  or  constructive  presence  or  action  of  the 
laity,  as  distinct  from  their  pastors,  in  the  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, or  in  the  Council  of  preachers  that  called  it,  is  pure  fic- 
tion, apparently  devised  more  than  half  a  century  later  for  con- 
troversial purposes.  From  Dr.  Coke's  Journal  we  know  that 
the  laity  were  present  in  hundreds  at  Barratt's  Chapel — he  ad- 
ministered the  Lord's  Sujiper,  he  says,  to  five  or  six  hundred 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  141 


communicants;  yet  none  of  these  were  called  into  the  Council 
to  consult  about  the  calling  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  nor 
were  they  or  any  other  laymen  invited  to  seats  in  that  body. 
There  were  no  delegates  or  representatives  of  the  laity:  the  mem- 
bership of  the  Societies  did  not  act  in  such  manner  at  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Church  that  a  purely  clerical  body  could  not  undo 
the  work  of  the  Conference:  in  fact,  the  laity  did  not  act  at  all, 
though  content  with  what  was  done,  and  purely  clerical  bodies  did 
immediately  begin  the  revision  of  the  work  done  in  1784.  Such 
functions  of  the  laity  were  entirely  foreign  to  the  conceptions 
of  Church  government  entertained  by  the  fathers  of  1784;  this 
unhistorical  idea  would  perhaps  never  have  been  suggested  ex- 
cept that  long  afterwards  it  was  needed  as  a  proof  to  sustain  a 
failing  cause  that  had  little  else  upon  which  to  lean.^ 

2.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  not  a  convention  in  the 
sense  of  making  a  constitution  and  lodging  it  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  as  a  charter  and  definition  of  the  powers 
to  be  exercised  by  a  legislature.  No  such  constitutional  con- 
vention assembled  in  American  Methodism  until  1808.  Yet  it 
would  be  very  easy  to  construct  a  verbal  argument  proving  the 
Christmas  Conference  a  constitutional  convention.  Asbury,  in 
the  letter  to  Benson  of  1816  as  cited  above,  refers  to  "  our  con- 
stitution," enacted  in  1784;  and  the  title  of  the  Discipline  of 
1786  is,  "  The  General  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  in  America,  forming  the  Consiituf ion  of 
the  said  Church."  (Italics  ours.)  But  such  verbal  arguments 
are  very  deceptive,  and  will  lead  us  astray  unless  we  pass  to  the 
realities  that  lie  behind  them.  The  term  "constitution,"  em- 
ployed in  these  citations,  does  not  designate  any  unrevisable 
legislation  of  the  Christmas  Conference,  expressly  set  apart  and 

'Tlie  first  "Constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  IMethodist  Protestant 
Church  "  (Baltimore:  18.'50;  Preface,  p.  v.)  gives  unequivocal  witness  on  this 
point:  "At  the  close  of  the  year  1784,  the  methodist  societies  in  these  United 
States,  were  organized  by  a  conference  of  preachers  exclusively,  into  what 
is  called  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  .  .  .  The  government  was  so 
framed  by  the  conference,  as  to  secure  to  tlie  itinerant  ministers,  the  unlim- 
ited exercise  of  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  powers  of  the  church, 
to  the  entire  exclusion  of  all  other  classes  of  ministers  and  all  the  people." 
This  testimony  in  1830  of  seceders  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
suflBciently  oifsets  the  cunningly  devised  theory  of  a  later  controversy  at- 
tributed to  Mr.  Choate. 


142 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


recognized  as  such;  but  refers  to  the  necessary  permanency  of 
the  principles  of  Episcopal  regimen  which  the  American  Meth- 
odists had  incorporated  in  their  ecclesiastical  organization, 
which,  while  they  could  be  legally  eliminated,  speaking  from 
the  standpoint  of  pure  theory,  could  not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  be 
canceled  without  repudiating  the  fundamental  convictions  and 
practically  irrevocable  deeds  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  the  American 
Methodists,  and  thus  overturning  all  the  foundations  that  had 
been  laid. 

3.  The  Christmas  Conference  was  a  convention  in  the  senses 
specified  and  elaborated  above:  (1)  In  its  call,  and  the  extraor- 
dinary purposes  and  ends  involved  therein;  (2)  As  an  intended 
mass  meeting  of  all  the  itinerants  who  had  hitherto  acted  as 
legislators  of  the  Church,  convened  to  take  action  on  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's plan;  (3)  As  creatine;  the  Church,  by  initiating  and  con- 
firming its  orders  and  sacraments,  thus  standing  exterior  to  the 
Church,  and  not  in  it;  and  (4)  As  dissolving  in  its  adjournment 
and  constituting  no  General  Conference  successor,  governmental 
sovereignty,  with  the  exception  of  the  "binding  minute,"  being 
fully  committed  to  the  yearly  assembly  called  "the  Conference." 

From  the  beginning,  the  historians  of  the  Church  have  recog- 
nized the  extraordinary  and  exceptional  character  of  the  Christ- 
mas Conference.  Jesse  Lee,  earliest  and  most  exact,  says,  in- 
deed, of  the  Christmas  Conference  that  it  "  was  considered  to  be 
a  general  conference  "  ^ — a  rather  reticent  and  dubious  expres- 
sion from  such  an  historian,  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of 
what  follows.  The  caption  of  Chapter  V.,  in  which  this  fuller  ex- 
pression occurs  also,  runs,  "  From  the  first  general  Conference  in 
1784,"  etc.  But  the  caption  of  Chapter  VII.  is,  "  From  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  1792,  in  which  the  first  regular  General  Confer- 
rence  was  held,"  etc.  Of  this  Conference  Lee  says,  "  On  the  first 
day  of  November,  1792,  the  first  regular  general  conference  be- 
gan in  Baltimore  "  ^ — the  text  in  no  wise  deviating  from,  or  lim- 
iting, the  caption,  as  in  the  case  of  Chapter  V.  For  Chapter  IX. 
the  caption  is,  "  From  the  beginning  of  the  year  1796,  including 
the  second  General  Conference,"  etc.,  the  adjective  "regular" 
being  omitted;  and  the  body  is  mentioned  several  times  in  the 
text  simply  as  the  "general  conference."  The  caption  of  Chap- 
ter X-  is,  "  From  the  beginning  of  the  year  1800,  including  the 


1  Short  History,  p.  94.     Ibid.,  p.  176. 


GENESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  143 


third  General  Conference,"  etc.,  and  the  corresponding  text  is, 
"This  year  we  held  our  third  regular  general  conference,"  etc.^ 
The  caption  of  Chapter  XI.  is,  "From  the  beginning  of  the 
year  1804,  including  the  fourth  general  conference,"  etc.,  and 
the  corresponding  text  is,  "  This  year  we  held  our  fourth  gen- 
eral conference  in  Baltimore,"  ^  etc.  Finally,  as  to  Lee's  nota- 
tion, he  says  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  "  The  219th 
[conference]  was  the  5th  general  conference,  held  in  Baltimore, 
on  the  6th  of  May."  ^  The  sum  of  the  evidence  derivable  from 
Lee  as  to  notation  is  this:  (1)  Once  in  a  caption  he  speaks  of 
1784  as  a  "  general  conference,"  which  is  qualified  in  the  text  by 
the  words  "was  considered  to  be,"  the  historian  withholding 
judgment;  (2)  twice,  in  1792  and  1800,  the  body  is  spoken  of 
as  the  "first  regular"  and  the  "third  regular"  General  Con- 
ference; (3)  three  times,  in  1796,  1804,  and  1808,  the  bodies  are 
spoken  of  absolutely  as  the  second,  fourth,  and  fifth  General 
Conferences,  this  being  apparently  the  final  notation  on  which 
Lee  settled. 

!  If,  in  view  of  the  whole  evidence,  we  attempt  to  fix  the  sense 
of  Lee's  term  "  regular,"  we  take  first  its  ordinary  lexical  mean- 
ing, "conformed  to  a  rule;  agreeable  to  an  established  rule, 
law,  principle,  or  type,"  and,  since  Lee  wrote  in  1809,  after  five 
I  Disciplinary  General  Conferences  had  been  held,  we  find  its 
specific  interpretation  in  the  fact  that  before  1792  the  Dis- 
cipline, the  law  book  of  the  Church,  did  not  distinguish  be- 
tween General  and  Annual  Conferences,  these  bodies  being  de- 
fined and  ordained  by  law  at  that  date.  That  his  employment 
of  the  term  "regular"  was  in  further  contrast  with  the  Confer- 
ences of  1785, 1786,  and  1787,  styled  "General  Conferences"  in 
the  Minutes,  is  highly  probable,  and  will  receive  some  consid- 
eration hereafter. 

But  there  are  other  passages  in  which  Lee  would  naturally 
have  spoken  of  the  Christmas  Conference  as  the  first  General 
Conference  had  he  so  regarded  it,  but  in  which  he  distinguishes 
it,  with  more  or  less  sharpness  of  contrast,  from  General  Confer- 
ences. Thus  he  says:  "I  shall  therefore  take  no  further  notice 
of  the  rules  about  slavery  which  were  made  at  various  times  for 
twenty-four  years,  i.  e.  fi-om  the  Christmas  Conference  in  1784, 
to  the  last  general  conference  held  in  1808."  *    Speaking  of  the 


iShortHistory,  p.  264.   Ubid.,  ip.  297.   Ubid.,  p.  3i5.    *Ibid.,  p.  102. 


144 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


college,  lie  says,  "  The  business  was  brought  before  the  conference 
which  met  at  Christmas,"  ^  etc.  Alluding  to  Mr.  Whatcoat's  re- 
jection as  a  bishop  in  1787,  he  says:  "Dr.  Coke  contended  that 
we  were  obliged  to  receive  Mr.  Whatcoat,  because  we  had  said 
in  the  minutes  taken  at  the  Christmas  conference,  when  we  were 
first  formed  into  a  Church  in  1784,"  ^  etc.  "  Mr.  Tunnil  was 
elected  to  the  office  of  an  elder  at  the  Christmas  conference, 
when  we  were  first  formed  into  a  Church."  ^  Finally:  "It  was 
eight  years  from  the  Christmas  conference,  where  we  became  a 
regular  church,  to  this  general  conference."  *  Not  much  weight 
is  to  be  assigned  these  passages,  except  as  they  indicate  Mr. 
Lee's  general  drift.  It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  in  the  first 
and  last  passages  the  Christmas  Conference  is  distinguished 
from  General  Conferences  in  the  same  sentence,  and  that  in 
three  the  organizing  function  of  the  body  is  emphasized  as  its 
distinguishing  note. 

In  conclusion,  it  is  desirable  to  state  explicitly  some  general 
prerogative  facts,  in  the  light  of  which  the  details  of  evidence 
are  to  be  considered. 

I.  No  Discipline  from  1785  to  1791  inclusive  contains  the 
distinction  between  General  and  Annual  Conferences  in  form 
or  fact.  We  have  already  considered  the  answers  in  the  Disci- 
plines of  1785  and  1786,  which  assign  supreme  governmental 
authority  to  "the  Conference."  In  the  Disciplines  of  1787, 
1788,  1789,  1790,  and  1791,  "  the  Conference "  continues  the 
sovereign  and  exclusive  organ  of  government.  In  every  one  of 
these  Disciplines,  now  lying  before  us,  "the  electing  and  or- 
daining of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Deacons"  is  "business  to  be 
done  in  the  Conference."  In  the  sections  devoted  to  these  or- 
ders of  ministers,  it  is  said  of  all,  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons, 
that  they  are  to  be  constituted  "  by  the  election  of  a  majority  of 
the  Conference,"  etc.;  and  bishops  are  amenable  "  to  the  Confer- 
ence: who  have  the  power  to  expel  them  for  improper  conduct, 
if  they  see  it  necessary."  The  mere  statement  of  these  simple 
facts  cannot  bring  home  to  the  consciousness  of  a  reader  the  full- 
ness and  weight  of  knowledge  and  conviction  that  spring  from  the 
monotonous  reiteration  in  all  these  connections  of  the  sole  and 
supreme  governmental  authority  of  the  only  organ  of  govern- 
ment recognized  in  the  Disciplines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


1  Short  History,  p.  113.   ^Ibid.,  p.  126.   Ubid.,  p.  162.   *Ibid.,  p.  192. 


GEyESIS  OF  GENERAL  AND  ANNUAL  CONFERENCES.  145 


Churcb  from  its  organization  to  1792.  As  one  picks  up  Disci- 
pline after  Discipline,  and  examines  its  provisions  in  detail,  he 
sees  that  here  is  a  system  of  government,  simple  and  original, 
differing  widely  from  that  which  prevailed  afterwards.  Though, 
throughout  this  period,  "the  Conference"  met  in  sections,  va- 
rying from  three  in  1785  to  sixteen  in  1792,  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church  never  recognized  any  impairment  of  its  unity  or  su- 
premacy, and  from  beginning  to  end  of  the  period  the  legally 
constituted  organ  of  government  in  our  Church  was  "  the  Con- 
ference." 

11.  The  Discipline  of  1792,  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
American  Methodism,  substitutes  for  "  the  Conference "  two 
bodies,  "the  General  and  District  [Annual]  Conferences." 
Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  Church  do  we  find  such  a 
division,  distribution,  and  definition  of  governmental  powers 
between  these  two  orders  of  Conferences,  which  have  continued 
in  the  Discipline  and  in  the  Church  to  this  day.  The  act  was 
of  legal  and  disciplinary  force  and  record  in  the  strictest  sense 
of  the  terms.  The  year  1792  must  rank  with  1784  and  1808  as 
of  first-rate  importance  in  the  constitutional  history  of  Episco- 
pal Methodism.  In  1792,  for  the  first  time  in  the  law  book  of 
the  Church,  the  question  is  asked,  "Who  shall  compose  the 
General  Conference?"  and  its  membership  is  defined  —  all  the 
traveling  preachers  in  full  connection.  For  the  first  time  a  sov- 
ereign successor  of  the  same  order  is  constituted.  "When  and 
where  shall  the  next  General  Conference  be  held?  "  is  asked,  and 
the  answer  recorded,  "  On  the  1st  day  of  November,  in  the  year 
1796,  in  the  town  of  Baltimore."  Similarly,  for  the  first  time 
in  the  Discipline  and  in  the  Church,  the  membership  and  ses- 
sions of  what  we  now  call  Annual  Conferences  are  legally  de- 
termined. "Who  are  the  members  of  the  District  [Annual] 
Conferences?"  is  asked,  and  the  answer  is,  "All  the  traveling 
preachers  of  the  District  or  Districts  respectively,  who  are  in 
full  connection."  "How  often  are  the  District  Conferences  to 
be  held?"  Answer:  "Annually."  For  the  first  time  in  the 
history  of  the  Church,  the  election  of  bishops  is  made  the  ex- 
clusive prerogative  of  "  the  General  Conference  " ;  and,  like- 
wise for  the  first  time,  these  officers  are  made  amenable  to  the 
newly-constituted  tribunal,  "the  General  Conference."  Elders 
and  deacons,  hitherto,  like  the  bishops,  elected  by  "  the  Confer- 
10 


146 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


ence,"  are  now  to  be  constituted  "by  the  election  of  a  majority 
of  the  District  Conference."  And  so  in  the  Discipline  of  1792, 
from  which  all  of  these  citations  and  facts  are  directly  gath- 
ered, we  have  the  original  legal  constitution  of  General  and  An- 
nual Conferences,  with  the  Disciplinary  division  and  definition 
of  their  powers.  From  1792  the  legislative  function  inheres  ex- 
clusively in  the  General  Conference.  And  the  law  book — the 
Discipline — now  goes  forth  to  the  Church  for  the  first  time  with 
the  notice  on  its  face  that  it  was  "  revised  and  approved "  by  a 
body  styled  "  the  General  Conference." 

These  decisive  facts  may  suffice.  On  them,  with  the  results 
of  the  preceding  discussion,  we  rest  the  inevitable  historical 
conclusions.  They  are  fully  able  to  sustain  them.  The  assem- 
bling of  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  with  the  provision  for 
a  succession  of  like  order,  and  the  legal  division  and  definition 
of  the  iDOwers  of  General  and  Annual  Conferences  placed  for 
the  first  time  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  constitute  by 
every  token  and  in  an  absolute  sense  the  creation  of  an  institu- 
tion, (a)  by  deliberate  purpose  and  legislative  enactment;  {b)  to 
meet  acknowledged  practical  necessities,  existent  then,  but  not 
in  1784;  and  (c)  to  the  exclusion  and  abolition  of  a  rival  scheme 
of  general  government — the  Council — then  supposed  to  be  op- 
erative, and  which  had  been  found  inadequate  to  the  exigencies 
of  the  Church.  From  1792  the  General  Conference  has  con- 
tinued the  permanent  organ  of  government  in  American  Meth- 
odism; and  Annual  Conferences  have  developed  on  the  lines 
fixed  and  defined  at  that  date.  The  two  institutions,  as  known 
to  the  law  of  the  Church,  were  a  simultaneous  creation  at  that 
epoch. 


CHAPTEE  XIII. 


The  Baltimore  Conference  System  of  Government  in 
American  Methodism. 

It  is  designed  to  investigate  briefly  the  intricate  and  impor- 
tant subject  of  wliat  we  shall  venture  to  call  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference system  of  government  in  American  Methodism. 

In  1780,  the  Asburyan,  Northern,  or  Baltimore  Conference 
met  in  Baltimore:  the  "regular,"  Southern,  or  Virginia  Confer- 
ence met  at  Maiiakintown,  and  by  the  intercession  of  Asbury, 
Garrettson,  and  Watters  was  reconciled,  after  the  Fluvanna 
schism,  to  the  Baltimore  or  Asburyan  body,  the  union  being 
consummated  in  1781.  From  that  date  until  1787,  the  Baltimore 
Conference  was  the  final  Conference  of  every  year,  and  enjoyed 
pollers  and  privileges  not  accorded  any  other  body.  This  is  the 
peculiar  phenomenon  which  we  desire  historically  to  investi- 
gate. 

Of  the  Conference  of  1781,  Jesse  Lee  says: 

On  the  24tli  day  of  April,  the  ninth  conference  met  in  Baltimore.  But 
previous  to  this,  a  few  preachers  on  the  Eastern  Shore,  held  a  liitle  conference 
in  Delaware  state,  near  Choptank,  to  make  some  arrangements  for  those 
preachers  who  could  not  go  with  them,  and  then  adjourned  (as  they  called 
it)  to  Baltimore ;  so  upon  the  whole  it  was  considered  but  one  conference.^ 

And  that  one  Conference  was  of  course  the  Baltimore.  The 
Minutes  published  in  1795  confirm  Lee,  saying  of  the  Confer- 
ence of  1781  that  it  was  "held  at  Choptank,  state  of  Delaware, 
April  16th,  1781,  and  adjourned  to  Baltimore  the  24th  of  said 
month."  The  next  year,  1782,  Lee  explains  the  governmental 
relation  of  the  Southern  or  Virginia  Conference  to  the  Northern 
or  Baltimore  Conference  as  follows: 

The  work  had  so  increased  and  spread,  that  it  was  now  found  necessary 
to  have  a  conference  in  the  south  [the  Virginia]  every  year,  continuing  the 
conference  in  the  north  [the  Baltimore]  as  usual.  Yet  as  the  conference  in 
the  north  was  of  the  longest  standing,  and  withal  composed  of  the  oldest 
preachers,  it  was  allowed  greater  privileges  than  that  in  the  south;  espe- 
cially in  making  rules,  and  forming  regulations  for  the  societies.  Accord- 
ingly, when  any  thing  was  agreed  to  in  the  Virsinia  conference,  and  after- 


1  Short  History,  p.  75.    "p,  41, 

(147) 


148 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


wards  disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  conference,  it  was  dropped.  But  if 
any  rule  was  fixed  and  determined  on  at  the  Baltimore  conference,  the 
preachers  in  the  south  were  under  the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it.  The 
southern  conference  was  considered  at  that  time  as  a  convenience,  and  de- 
signed to  accommodate  the  preachers  in  that  part  of  the  work,  and  do  all 
the  business  of  a  regular  conference,  except  that  of  making  or  altering  par- 
ticular rules.i 

Here  we  have  the  final  legislative  authority  fixed  in  the  Bal- 
timore Conference,  while  the  Virginia  Conference  was  practically 
confined  to  a  narrower  and  non-legislative  sphere.  At  this  very 
Conference  of  1782,  the  brethren  unanimously  chose  brother 
Asbury  "to  act  according  to  Mr.  Wesley's  original  appoint- 
ment, and  preside  over  the  American  conferences  and  the  whole 
work."  The  Delaware  precedent  of  1779,  and  this  of  1782,  fa- 
miliarized Mr.  Asbury's  mind  with  election  by  the  American 
Conference,  and  doubtless  suggested  to  him  the  alternative  o£ 
Conference  election  to  the  episcopal  ofiice  in  1784  by  which  he 
secured  protection  against  Mr.  Wesley's  hitherto  little  ques- 
tioned supremacy.  Dr.  L.  M.  Lee  declares  ^  that  "  a  preacher 
in  one  division  possessed  the  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  other." 
Yet  we  shall  fall  into  one-sided  exaggeration  and  error  if  we  fail 
to  notice  that  officially  these  two  bodies  were  still  regarded  as 
one  Conference,  which,  according  to  the  Minutes  of  1795,  was 
"  held  at  Ellis's  Preaching-House,  in  Sussex  County,  Virginia, 
April  17th,  1782,  and  adjourned  to  Baltimore,  May  21st."  ^ 
Similarly  in  1783  the  Conference  met  at  Ellis's,  May  6,  "  and 
adjourned  to  Baltimore  the  27th."  *  This  accorded  with  the 
appointment  of  the  preceding  year,  when  "it  was  agreed  we 
should  have  the  next  conference  in  Virginia,  on  the  first  Tues- 
day in  May  following;  and  the  conference  in  the  north  in  Balti- 
more, on  the  last  Wednesday  in  the  same  month."  *  The  same 
system  continued  to  obtain  in  1784,  at  the  last  Conference  held 
before  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
According  to  the  Minutes,®  the  Conference  was  "begun  at 
Ellis's  Preaching  House,  Virginia,  April  30th,  1784,  and  ended 
at  Baltimore,  May  28th,  following."    Lee  particularizes: 

In  1784,  the  twelfth  conference  began  at  Ellis's  chapel,  in  Virginia,  on  the 
30th  day  of  April,  and  ended  in  Baltimore,  on  the  28th  of  May.  It  was  con- 
sidered as  but  one  conference,  although  they  met  first  in  Virginia,  and  then 
adjourned  to  Baltimore,  where  the  business  was  finished.' 

1  Short  History,  pp.  78,  79.  ^Life  of  Jesse  Lee,  p.  101.  ^p.  49.  ^Ibid., 
p.  57.   « Lee,  Short  History,  p.  81.   ep.  65.   '  Short  History,  p.  86. 


THE  BALTIMOL'E  COXFEREXCE  SYSTEM. 


149 


Througlaout  these  years  we  have  a  dual  session  of  the  Confer- 
ence, the  first  in  Virginia,  preparatory  and  chiefly  executive,  and 
the  last  in  Baltimore,  of  final  legislative  authority.  It  is  not 
without  significance  that  no  other  place  than  Baltimore  seems 
to  have  been  thought  of  as  the  seat  of  the  extraordinary  and 
called  session  which  is  known  as  the  Christmas  Conference; 
and  we  shall  not  be  able  to  understand  this  body  in  its  complete 
historical  setting  unless  we  keep  in  mind  this  Baltimore  Con- 
ference system  of  government  which  virtually  began  in  1780; 
which  was  not  for  a  season  interrupted  or  essentially  altered  by 
the  action  of  the  Christmas  Conference  in  fixing  the  government 
of  the  Church  in  "  the  Conference  ";  and  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
did  not  come  to  an  end  until  1787.  When  the  called  Conference 
met  in  Baltimore  on  Christmas  Eve,  1784,  it  assembled  in  the 
midst  of  the  traditions  of  the  five  successive  annual  legislative 
sessions  of  the  Conference  which  had  been  previously  held  in 
the  same  city.  Hence  it  called  itself  "  a  Conference  " ;  hence, 
without  specific  creation  of  a  new  governing  body,  or  definition 
of  its  legislative  powers,  it  was  able  to  commit  all  the  powers  of 
government  in  the  newly  organized  Church  to  "the  Confer- 
ence," whose  general  functions  had  been  so  long  established 
and  were  so  familiarly  understood,  and  which,  as  we  shall  see, 
continued  for  three  years  after  the  organization  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  to  hold  its  final  legislative  sessions  in 
Baltimore,  as  it  had  been  accustomed  to  do  for  five  years  pre- 
ceding that  organization. 

Here  we  are  confronted  with  a  singular  phenomenon,  of  which 
the  very  probable,  but  possibly  incomplete,  explanation  will 
presently  become  more  evident.  Jesse  Lee  tells  us  that  in  1785, 
1786,  and  1787,  when  the  annual  Minutes  first  began  to  be  pub- 
lished, the  caption  in  these  first  three  editions  of  the  Minutes 
was,  "Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  America."  ^  The  term  "General  Confer- 
ence," though  entirely  absent  from  the  three  editions  of  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church  published  during  these  three  years, 
is  here  applied  in  the  same  sense  to  the  Conferences  of  1785, 
1786,  and  1787,  when  the  term  is  dropped  and  disappears 
from  the  Minutes.  In  1785,  there  were  for  the  first  time 
three  Conference  sessions  held — in  North  Carolina,  in  Vir- 


1  Short  History,  p.  118. 


150  THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 

.  !  .  

ginia,  and  the  final  one  in  Baltimore — tliough  tivo,  as  we  have 
seen,  had  for  many  years  been  common;  and  three  was  tbo 
number  for  1786  and  1787 :  of  the  Minutes  of  these  three  years, 
Lee  immediately  adds:  "The  business  of  the  three  conferences 
was  all  arranged  in  the  minutes  as  if  it  had  all  been  done  at  one 
time  and  place."  The  use  of  the  term  "General  Conference"  in  the 
caption  of  tlie  Minutes,  tlierefore,  coincides,  as  to  its  beg  inning,  with 
tlie  expansion  of  the  Conference  sessions  to  tite  niiinher  of  fliree, 
still  apparently  regarded  as  one,  Jtoirever;  continues  durintj  the 
period  when  the  final  session  of  the  three  icas  held  in  tlie  citg  of 
Baltimore;  and  is  abandoned  when  the  sessions  are  expanded  to 
an  indefinite  number  {six  in  1788,  eleven  in  1789,  fourteen  in 
1790),  u'iien  tlie  Baltimore  session,  no  longer  last,  falls  indis- 
criminatehj  as  to  time  in  the  list,  and  when  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference  thus  finally  forfeits  the  primacy  ivliich  it  had  enjoyed  since 
1780.  These  are  facts,  and,  upon  further  consideration,  it  will 
be  seen  that  they  go  far  toward  constituting  a  satisfactory 
explanation  of  the  otherwise  inexplicable  phenomenon  in  the 
heading  of  the  Minutes  to  which  Lee  directs  our  attention. 

As  the  basis  of  a  more  minute  examination,  it  will  be  well  to 
quote  the  entire  passage  from  Lee: 

In  1785  we  had  three  conferences.  The  fourteenth  conference  was  held 
at  Green  Hill's,  in  North  Carolina,  on  the  20th  of  April.  The  fifteenth  con- 
ference was  held  at  Mr.  Mason's,  in  Brunswick  county,  in  Virginia,  on  the 
1st  day  of  May.  The  sixteenth  conference  was  held  in  Baltimore,  on  the  1st 
day  of  June. 

This  was  the  first  time  that  we  had  more  than  one  regular  conference  in 
the  same  year.  For  a  few  years  before  this,  we  had  two  conferences  in  the 
same  year,  but  they  were  considered  only  as  one,  first  begun  in  one  place, 
and  adjourned  to  another.  Now  there  were  three,  and  no  adjournment.  I 
have  therefore  considered  the  conferences  as  but  one  in  the  year,  and  have 
numbered  them  accordingly;  but  from  this  time  I  shall  consider  the  num- 
ber of  the  conferences  as  I  find  them  in  the  minutes. 

This  year,  and  the  two  succeeding  years,  the  minutes  were  called,  "  Min- 
utes of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America." 

The  business  of  the  three  was  all  arranged  in  the  minutes  as  if  it  had  all 
been  done  at  one  time  and  place.  And  for  the  first  time  we  had  the  annual 
minutes  printed;  which  practice  we  have  followed  ever  since.i 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  regular  Conference  of  1784 
had  held  its  annual  sessions  in  Virginia  and  Baltimore  in  the 


1  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  118. 


THE  BALTIMORE  CONFEHENCE  SYSTEM. 


151 


spring,  some  seven  or  eight  months  before  the  called  session  of 
that  year  met  iu  Baltimore  at  Christmas.  Now,  these  three  Con- 
ference sessions  of  1785,  enumerated  by  Lee,  were  fixed,  not  by 
the  called  Christmas  Conference,  but  by  the  regular  Conference 
in  the  spring  preceding,  the  final  question  of  whose  Minutes  is: 

Quest.  24.  When  and  where  shall  our  next  conference  be  held? 

Answ.  The  first  at  Green  Hill's,  Friday  29th  and  Saturday  30th  of  April, 
North  Carolina:  the  second  in  Virginia,  at  conference  chapel.  May  8th;  the 
third  in  Maryland,  Baltimore,  the  15th  day  of  June.i 

These  three  sessions  were  actually  held,  the  appointments  of 
the  Conference  in  the  spring  of  1784  for  the  Conference  of  1785 
overleaping  the  Christmas  Conference  as  if  it  had  not  been 
held.  On  comparing  this  answer  with  Lee,  however,  it  is  found 
that  the  sessions  anticipated  the  appointed  time  from  a  week  to 
fifteen  days.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  that  this  change  of  time 
may  have  been  arranged  at  the  Christmas  Conference;  but 
against  this  supposition  is  the  fact  that  the  Conference  appoint- 
ments made  at  the  close  of  the  Minutes  of  1785,  in  which  occurs 
the  only  record  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference 
outside  of  the  First  Discipline,  are  for  the  year  1786 : 

Quest.  17.  When  and  where  shall  we  hold  our  conferences  next  year? 

Answ.  At  Salisbury,  21st  of  February.  At  Lane's  chapel,  in  Southampton 
county,  Virginia,  Monday,  10th  of  April.  In  Baltimore,  the  8th  of  May, 
1786.2 

This  action  was  doubtless  taken  at  the  final  Baltimore  session 
in  June,  1785;  but  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  (1)  that  the  Con- 
ference sessions  of  1785  were  appointed  by  the  regular  spring 
Conference  of  1784;  (2)  that  it  is  the  Conference  sessions  of 
1786  that  are  recorded  at  the  close  of  the  Minutes  which  include 
proceedings  of  the  Christmas  Conference  with  those  of  the  reg- 
ular Conference  sessions  of  the  year  1785;  and  (3)  that  the  rec- 
ords are  silent  as  to  any  change  of  time  for  the  sessions  of  1785 
made  by  the  Christmas  Conference.  The  much  more  probable 
explanation  of  the  hurrying  up  of  the  times  of  meeting  is  found 
in  the  convenience  of  Dr.  Coke,  who  sailed  for  England,  June 
2,  and  in  the  slavery  agitation  which  made  necessary  the  speedy 
repeal  of  the  inopportune  action  of  the  called  Conference  on 
that  question. 

We  thus  see  how  the  Baltimore  Conference  system  went  on 


1  Minutes,  ed.  of  1795,  p.  73.   « md.,  p.  83. 


152 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


after  the  organization  of  the  Church  without  interruption  or 
essential  modification  as  to  principle.  After  the  dissolution  of 
the  called  Conference  of  Christmas,  1784,  three  Conferences,  or 
sessions  of  the  one  Conference,  met  in  1785,  appointed  by  the 
regular  spring  Conference  of  1784,  the  last  session,  as  usual, 
being  held  in  Baltimore,  June  1.  Here,  doubtless,  were  made 
the  appointments  for  the  Conference  sessions  of  1786;  and  here, 
certainly,  as  Coke  informs  us  (Journal,  June  1,  1785),  the  min- 
ute of  the  called  Christmas  Conference  concerning  slavery  was 
suspended,  the  Baltimore  Conference  exercising  as  heretofore 
the  final  legislative  authority  of  the  year,  though  the  subject 
had  received  previous  consideration  in  Virginia. 

Lee  says  distinctly  in  the  passage  cited  that  from  1785  onward 
there  was  no  adjournment  from  Conference  to  Conference  of  the 
year,  as  we  know  there  had  been  from  Virginia  to  Baltimore  dur- 
ing the  years  1781-1784  inclusive.  There  exists  nowhere  any 
record  of  an  adjournment  of  the  called  Christmas  Conference  to 
the  first  regular  session  of  1785;  if  there  had  been  such  an  ad- 
journment, it  is  not  a  violent  presumption  that  this  most  exact 
historian,  Lee,  according  to  his  habit,  would  have  found  it  nat- 
ural, if  not  necessary,  to  make  record  of  it.  He  does  expressly 
record,  in  this  connection,  that  there  was  no  adjournment  in 

1785  from  North  Carolina  to  Virginia,  or  from  Virginia  to  Bal- 
timore, thus  cutting  olf  the  called  Conference  of  1784-85  from 
any  supposed  continuity  with  the  final  Baltimore  session  of 
1785.  If  there  was  thus  no  adjournment  from  session  to  ses- 
sion of  the  same  year,  much  less  may  we  suppose  there  was  an 
adjournment  from  year  to  year,  i.  e.,  from  1785  to  1786  and  from 

1786  to  1787.  All  the  information  we  have  detaches  the  called 
Conference  from  the  regular  Conferences  preceding  it,  and  the 
regular  Conferences  following  it,  making  it  an  extraordinary 
parenthesis  in  the  regular  ongoings  of  the  settled  Conference 
government  of  the  American  Methodists.  Lee,  however,  makes 
the  cessation  of  the  usual  adjournment  from  Conference  to  Con- 
ference of  the  same  year  the  occasion  of  regarding  and  num- 
bering the  several  sessions  of  a  year  as  distinct  Conferences; 
while  the  annual  Discipline  of  the  Church,  down  to  and  includ- 
ing the  edition  of  1791,  still  knows  only  "the  Conference,"  as 
the  regular  governmental  body,  and  the  Minutes  of  1785,  1786, 
and  1787,  according  to  Lee,  designate  the  conjoint  sessions, 


THE  BALTIMORE  CONFERENCE  SYSTEM. 


153 


*'the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  America." 

To  be  exact  and  complete,  we  must  now  notice  a  discrepancy 
between  Lee  and  the  earliest  collected  edition  of  the  Minutes, 
published  in  1795.  Not  only  does  Lee  give  an  identical  title, 
as  cited,  for  the  three  years,  1785,  1786,  and  1787;  but  he  says, 
"  The  business  of  the  three  conferences,"  of  each  of  these  years, 
"  was  all  arranged  in  the  minutes  as  if  it  had  all  been  done  at  one 
time  and  place."  For  1786  and  1787  the  Minutes  of  1795  confirm 
Lee  as  to  title  and  contents,  except  that  the  words  "  in  America  " 
are  omitted  from  the  designation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  But  in  the  case  of  the  year  1785,  we  find  the  Minutes 
in  the  first  collected  form  of  1795  differing  from  Lee  as  to  both 
title  and  contents.  In  the  Minutes  the  title  runs:  "Minutes  of 
Some  Conversations  between  the  Ministers  and  Preachers  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  a  General  Conference  held 
at  Baltimore,  January,  1785";  and,  in  addition  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  three  Conferences  of  1785,  as  described  by  Lee,  the 
Minutes  of  1795  include  certain  proceedings  of  the  Christmas 
Conference  which  do  not  appear  in  the  Minutes  published  by 
Coke,  constituting  the  First  Discipline  of  the  Church.  These 
additional  proceedings  of  the  called  Conference,  recorded  in 
these  Minutes,  consist  of  the  official  record  of  the  ordinations 
of  Superintendents,  Elders,  and  Deacons,  at  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference; in  the  case  of  the  elders  and  deacons  the  names  being 
given  in  connection  with  subsequent  ordinations  at  the  regular 
sessions  in  the  answers  to  the  same  minute  questions.  There 
is  given  also  a  full  copy  of  Mr.  Wesley's  circular  letter,  with  a 
few  introductory  words  and  a  concluding  note,  in  which  the 
"elected  superintendent"  is  termed  a  "bishop" — a  title  absent 
from  the  Discipline  until  1787.  The  other  business  of  this  rec- 
ord appears  to  have  been  transacted,  and  to  have  been  made 
matter  of  record,  at  a  time  subsequent  to  the  Christmas  Con- 
ference, i.  e.,  at  the  regular  sessions  of  Conference  in  1785. 

We  have  previously  seen  reasons  why  we  cannot  with  cer- 
tainty push  the  date  of  this  form  of  record  farther  back  than 
1795,  the  time  of  our  earliest  copy.  Examining  the  document, 
we  find  two  discrepancies  between  its  title  and  the  facts:  (1)  it 
describes  the  Christmas  Conference  as  "  held  at  Baltimore,  Jan- 
uary, 1785,"  whereas  it  met  Friday,  December  24, 1784,  transacted 


154 


THE  MA  ICING  OF  METHODISM. 


the  bulk  of  its  business  during  the  last  week  of  that  year,  and 
probably  closed  its  business  sessions,  Saturday,  January  1, 1785 ;  ^ 
(2)  the  title  is  an  incorrect  description  of  the  document  which 
it  heads,  the  body  of  which  contains  the  record  of  the  transac- 
tions at  Green  Hill's,  North  Carolina,  in  April;  at  Mason's,  in 
Virginia,  in  May;  and  at  Baltimore,  in  June,  1785.  These  ob- 
vious discrepancies  excite  suspicion  of  a  free  editorial  hand 
used  on  this  record  as  published  in  the  Minutes  of  1795;  and 
raise  an  inquiry  as  to  the  discovery  of  any  apparent  reason  or 
motive  for  alteration.  Now  we  know  from  Jesse  Lee,  in  the 
passage  cited  above  and  elsewhere,  that  from  1785  the  "  annual 
minutes  "  were  printed;  so  that  there  were  contemporary  printed 
minutes  of  the  Conference  of  1785,  ten  years  older  than  the 
edition  of  1795  which  has  come  down  to  us.  Jesse  Lee  prom- 
ises us  in  his  History  that  "the  printed  minutes,"  from  their 
beginning  in  1785,  "  will  be  attended  to  as  they  come  out  year 
after  year."  ^  If  Jesse  Lee  kept  this  promise — and  all  we  know 
of  his  accuracy  and  completeness  leads  us  to  believe  that  he  did 
— the  original  printed  annual  minutes  of  1785  did  not  have  the 
heading  of  our  edition  of  1795,  but  on  the  contrary  one  identical 
with  the  Minutes  of  1786  and  1787;  and  those  first  printed  min- 
utes of  1785  did  not  include  the  matter  concerning  the  Christ- 
mas Conference,  for  Lee  says:  "The  business  of  the  three  Con- 
ferences [of  each  year]  was  all  arranged  in  the  Minutes  [of 
1785,  1786,  and  1787]  as  if  it  had  all  been  done  at  one  time  and 
place."  ^ 

If  Lee,  with  the  original  annual  Minutes  of  1785,  1786,  and 
1787  before  him,  has  here  made  his  usual  correct  record,  it 
follows  that  the  editor  of  the  collected  edition  of  1795  made 
alterations  both  in  the  title  and  in  the  contents  of  the  Minutes 
of  1785.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Bishop  Asbury  was 
this  editor;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  the  editor  dated  the 
Christmas  Conference  "January,  1785,"  in  order  to  throw  the 

^  Coke  dates  his  account  of  the  Christmas  Conference  "Friday,  Dec.  24- 
Jan.  2  [Sunday],  1785,"  and  Asbury  says,  "Monday,  January  3,  1785.  The 
conference  is  risen,  and  I  have  now  a  little  time  for  rest." 

2  Short  History,  p.  89. 

^  As  has  been  previously  noticed,  there  is  no  ground  for  expecting  the  dis- 
covery of  any  "lost  minutes"  other  than  those  we  have,  originally  taken  at 
the  Christmas  Conference ;  but  the  finding  of  the  prirded  Minutes  of  1786, 
described  by  Lee,  is  an  important  desideratum. 


THE  BALTIMORE  CONFERENCE  SYSTEM. 


155 


record  he  was  about  to  make  of  it  clironologically  with  the  Min- 
utes of  that  year;  while  he  added  the  circular  letter  ^  aud  other 
records  of  the  Christmas  Conference  which  had  found  no  place 
in  the  original  Minutes  of  that  body,  published  by  Coke  imme- 
diately after  its  adjournment. 

For  these  reasons,  we  have  been  obliged  to  say  in  the  itali- 
cized sentence  above,  "  Tlie  use  of  the  term  '  General  Conference '  in 
the  caption  of  the  Minutes,  therefore,  coincides,  as  to  its  bci/iiniin(j, 
irith  the  expansion  of  the  Conference  sessions  to  the  nuinher  (f  three,''' 
instead  of,  "  with  the  Christmas  Conference  and  the  organizedion  of 
the  Chnrch,"  since  the  evidence,  critically  canvassed,  will  not  sup- 
port this  latter  statement.  But  if  it  did,  it  would  still  remain 
true  that  the  term  "  General  Conference  "  in  the  first  printed  an- 
nual Minutes  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  Christmas  Confer- 

1  So  far  as  I  am  aware,  the  two  earliest  texts  of  Mr.  Wesley's  cin  ular  letter 
are  (1)  the  printed  copy  inserted  in  the  original  edition  of  the  Sunday  Serv- 
ice and  First  Discijiliiie,  which  lies  before  me;  and  (2)  the  copy  in  the  col- 
lected Minutes  of  1705.  The  copy  of  1795  gives  certain  token  that  it  is  not 
the  original,  but  was  carefully  edited  at  a  subsequent  date:  (a)  No.  1  above 
has  "many  of  the  provinces  of  North-America  are  totally  disjoined  from 
their  mother-country,"  which  the  American  editor  alteis  iu  No.  2  to  "from 
the  British  empire  " ;  (!>)  No.  1  says  that  the  civil  authority  is  exercised  "  part- 
ly by  the  provinci;U  Assemblies" — No.  2  says  "partly  by  the  State  Assem- 
blies"; (c)  No.  1  adds  to  paragraph  4  the  following,  wholly  omitted  from 
No.  2:  "And  I  have  prepared  a  liturgy,  little  differing  from  that  of  the 
church  of  England  (I  think,  the  best  constituted  national  church  in  the 
world),  which  I  advise  all  the  traveling  preachers  to  use  on  the  Lord's  day, 
in  all  their  congregations,  reading  the  litany  only  on  Wednesdays  and  Fri- 
days, and  praying  extempore  on  all  other  days.  I  also  advise  the  elders  to 
administer  the  supper  of  the  Lord  on  every  Lord's  day."  In  1795,  the  lit- 
urgy, litany,  etc.,  had  long  since  fallen  into  disuse,  and,  if  the  text  in  the 
Minutes  published  in  that  year  Mas  then  edited,  we  can  see  a  sound  reason 
for  this  extensive  omission.  Myles's  test  (English),  in  his  Chronological 
History,  pp.  161-163,  corresponds  to  No.  1  above;  Lee's  text  (American),  in 
his  Short  History  (pp.  91-93),  corresponds  to  No.  2 — an  additional  reason 
for  supposing  that  the  circular  letter  was  absent  from  the  annual  Minutes 
of  17cS5,  which  Lee  had,  since  here  he  follows  the  Minutes  of  1795.  The  text 
in  Tigert's  Constitutional  History  (pp.  174,  175)  reproduces  No.  1  in  agree- 
ment with  Myles. 

The  discussion  of  the  text  above  and  of  this  note  may  seem  to  some  readers 
a  piece  of  "higher  criticism."  Perhaps  it  is.  But,  from  whatever  point  of 
view  we  consider  the  record  of  the  Christmas  Conference  in  the  Minutes  of 
1795,  it  grows  more  and  more  certain  that  it  is  not  contemporary,  and  the 
more  closely  the  several  lines  of  evidence  which  lead  to  this  conclusion  are 
inspected,  the  sounder  will  the  reasoning  appear. 


156 


THE  MAKING  OF  METHODISM. 


ence,  but  had  a  latitude  of  meaning  wide  enough  to  include  the 
Conferences  of  1786  and  1787.  Finally,  if  Bishop  Asbury,  in 
1795,  changed  the  caption  of  the  Minutes  of  1785,  and  added  the 
edited  form  of  the  circular  letter  and  the  ordinations  of  Christ- 
mas 1784,  to  complete  the  record  of  the  called  Conference  at 
Christmas  with  items  omitted  from  its  contemporary  Minutes, 
it  is  one  more  proof,  almost  decisive,  that  Bishop  Asbury  had 
no  "  lost  minutes  "  from  which  to  glean  additional  matter. 

It  is  only  necessary,  in  conclusion,  to  touch  upon  the  collapse 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference  system  in  1787,  and  the  disappear- 
ance at  that  time  of  the  "  General  Conference "  heading  from 
the  Minutes.  In  1787,  the  South  Carolina  Conference,  at  its 
first  session,  with  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  presiding,  held  an 
episcopal  election — a  very  singular  proceeding  if  it  was  simply 
an  Annual  Conference  in  the  sense  of  the  Discipline — and  con- 
firmed Mr.  Wesley's  nomination  of  Whatcoat  to  the  episcopacy. 
At  the  Virginia  Conference  following,  serious  objection  to 
Whatcoat  was  raised  by  one  James  O' Kelly,  and  it  was  agreed 
by  the  Conference  that  this  nomination  should  be  finally  dis- 
posed of  at  the  Baltimore  Conference,  "  on  condition,"  as  Nich- 
olas Snethen  says,  "  that  the  Virginia  Conference  might  send  a 
deputy  to  explain  their  sentiments."  At  Baltimore,  according  to 
Snethen,  in  his  Reply  to  Mr.  O'Kelly's  Apology,  "a  vote  was 
taken  that  Kichard  Whatcoat  should  not  be  ordained  Superin- 
tendent, and  that  Mr.  Wesley's  name  should  for  the  future  be 
left  off  the  American  Minutes."  The  same  Conference  restrained 
Thomas  Coke  from  the  exercise  of  episcopal  authority  when  ab- 
sent from  the  United  States,  and  the  first  question  in  the  "  Min- 
utes of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  for  the  year  1787  "  is,  "  Who  are  the  Superintendents  of 
our  church  for  the  United  States?  "  and  the  answer  is,  "  Thomas 
Coke  (when  present  in  the  States)  and  Francis  Asbury." 

Thus  in  1787— not  in  1784— the  American  Methodist  Episco- 
pal  Church  fully  and  finally  asserted  its  autonomy:  thus  in  1787 
the  Baltimore  Conference  system  of  government  in  American 
Methodism — or  the  Baltimore  General  Conference  system,  if 
one  prefers  that  title — came  to  an  end.  For  1788,  six  Confer- 
ferences  are  appointed;  for  1789,  eleven;  for  1790,  fourteen;  for 
1791,  thirteen;  and  for  1792,  sixteen,  Baltimore  losing  its  pri- 
macy, and  falling  last  by  appointment  only  in  1788,  but  actually 


THE  BALTIMORE  CONFEREKCE  SYSTEM. 


157 


followed  in  September  by  tlie  Philadelphia,  which  was  the  sev- 
enth and  final  Conference  of  that  year.^  lu  1789,  according  to 
Coke's  explicit  testimony,  the  question  of  the  restoration  of  Mr. 
"Wesley's  name  in  the  Minutes  was  laid  l)efore  "  each  of  the  Con- 
ferences" (eleven),  and  "cheerfullj^  and  unanimously  agreed" 
to  by  "all  the  Conferences."  The  result  of  this  action  appears 
in  the  Minutes  and  Discipline  of  1789,  "  inserted  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  preclude"  Mr.  Wesley  "from  exercising  an  unconsti- 
tutional power"  over  the  Americans;  but  how  great  the  latitude 
of  the  term  "General  Conference,"  or  the  phrase  "general  Con- 
ference held  at  Baltimore,"  employed  in  making  these  fresh  his- 
torical entries,  five  years  after  the  event,  is  now  too  apparent  to 
merit  further  discussion.  Before  1792,  it  was  a  term  elastic 
enough  to  include,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Conferences  of  1785, 
of  1786,  and  of  1787:  after  1792  the  name  is  restricted  to  a  legal 
and  disciplinary  use,  which  has  ever  since  been  its  only  legiti- 
mate unqualified  meaning.  In  1789  and  1790  Bishop  Asbury 
passed  around  to  all  the  Conference  sessions  the  measures  per- 
taining to  the  Council.  In  1792  the  Conferences  called  the  first 
General  Conference;  which  provided  a  successor,  or,  as  Bishop 
Coke  says,  "  that  great  blessing  to  the  American  Connection — a 
permanency  for  General  Conferences."  At  that  date,  govern- 
ment by  "  the  Conference,"  whether  directly  exercised  by  pass- 
ing measiires  around  to  all  the  sessions,  or  more  or  less  modi- 
fied by  the  Baltimore  Conference  system,  or  by  the  "  Council," 
passed  away  forever;  and  the  General  Conference  has  continued 
without  intermission  to  this  day  the  organ  of  government  in 
American  Methodism — to  1808  supreme  and  absolute,  and  since, 
delegated  and  limited. 


'  Lee's  Short  History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  135. 


APPENDIX. 


APPENDIX. 


Orders:  Roman  and  Anglican. 

Christianity  and  churchism  still  struggle  in  the  womb  of 
time!  Leo  XIII.  and  his  canonists  have  decided  adversely  on 
the  validity  of  Anglican  orders.  The  conclusion  reached  is  that 
they  are  not  simply  irregular,  but  invalid — ecclesiastically  and 
canonical  ly  null  and  void.  Lord  Halifax  and  his  friends  de- 
luded themselves,  and,  to  some  extent,  the  Church  of  England, 
with  the  hope  of  papal  recognition;  and  Mr.  Gladstone  in  an 
able  paper  appealed  to  Leo.  In  their  hearts,  many  of  the  An- 
glo-Catholics acknowledge  the  papal  supremacy:  in  this  outward 
act,  having  foolishly  appealed  to  Leo,  and  thus  having  practi- 
cally acknowledged  his  jurisdiction  in  the  case,  how  shall  they 
reject  or  nullify  or  even  minify  this  decision,  now  that  it  has 
gone  against  them?  If  its  value  were  inestimable,  had  it  proved 
favorable,  how  can  it  be  declared  worthless,  now  that  it  has 
turned  out  to  be  adverse? 

The  Civilth  CaftoJica,  for  October  3,  1896,  contains  the  Latin 
text  of  this  adverse  papal  decision.  The  grounds  of  it  are  enu- 
merated as  follows:  (1)  Letters  given  forth  by  Julius  III.  in 
connection  with  Cardinal  Pole's  Legation  imply  that  ordinations 
taking  place  under  the  rite  of  Edward  YI.  had  not  been  duly 
consummated.  (2)  Letters  of  Paul  IV.,  issued  in  1555,  carry 
the  same  implication.  (3)  In  ordaining  certain  persons  pre- 
viously ordained  by  the  Edwardian  rite,  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  assumed  the  nullity  of  that  rite.  (4)  The  Edwardian  rite 
for  ordination  to  the  priesthood  [or  presbyterate]  in  its  original 
form  was  decidedly  defective  as  not  being  sufficiently  significant 
of  priestly  rank  and  function.  The  subsequent  addition  of  the 
words  ad  officiitm  et  opus  preshijferi,  while  as  much  as  admitting 
the  defect  of  the  original  form,  effected  nothing  for  the  validity 
of  Anglican  oi'ders,  since  in  the  interim  valid  orders  had  been 
lost  and  the  English  Church  had  within  herself  no  power  to  re- 
cover them.  (5)  The  form  of  episcopal  consecration  in  the  An- 
glican ordinal  is  defective.  Moreover,  the  episcopate,  as  being 
a  more  excellent  grade  of  priesthood,  cannot  be  validly  insti- 
ll (161) 


162 


APPENDIX. 


tuted  where  a  lapse  of  priestly  orders  has  occurred,  as  was  the 
case  in  the  English  Church.  (6)  Reflecting  the  close  connec- 
tion between  belief  and  ceremonial,  the  Anglican  ordinal  ex- 
cludes characteristic  features  of  the  Eoman.  It  contains  no 
open  reference  to  sacerdofium  or  to  the  power  of  consecrating 
and  offering  sacrifice.  (7)  While  the  Eoman  Church  presumes 
that  the  "intention,"  requisite  to  the  validity  of  a  sacramental 
performance,  is  present  where  the  Eoman  rite  is  used,  a  diver- 
gence from  that  rite  must  be  taken  as  a  positive  indication  that 
the  ministrant  puts  himself  in  opposition  to  the  Eoman  Church, 
and  does  not  intend  the  ordinance  which  he  executes  in  the 
sense  of  that  Church. 

That  the  exact  view  which  Leo  XIII.  and  his  canonists  take 
of  the  relation  of  the  priesthood  or  presbyterate  to  the  episo- 
pate,  and  how  it  differs  from  the  Anglican  doctrine,  may  be 
seen,  we  here  cite  the  text  of  this  fifth  ground  of  objection  in 
full: 

De  consecratione  episcopali  similiter  est.  Nam  formulae,  Accipe  Spiritum 
Sanctum,  non  modo  serius  adnexa  sunt  verba,  ad  officium  et  opus  episcopi,  sed 
etiam  de  iisdem,  ut  mox  dicemus,  judicandum  aliter  estquam  in  ritu  cathol- 
ico.  Neque  rei  proficit  quidquam  advocasse  prsefationis  precem,  Omnipotens 
Deus;  quum  ea  pariter  deminuta  sit  verbis  quae  summum  sacerdotium  deola- 
rent.  Sane,  nihil  hue  attinet  explorare,  utrum  episcopatus  complementum 
sit  sacerdotii,  an  ordo  ab  illo  distinctus:  aut  coUatus,  ut  aiunt,  per  sallum, 
scilicet  homini  non  sacerdoti,  utrum  affectum  habeat  necne.  At  ipse  procul 
dubio,  ex  institutione  Christi,  ad  sacramentum  Ordinis  verissime  pertinet, 
atque  est  prrecellente  gradu  sacerdotium;  quod  nimirum  et  voce  sanctorum 
Patrum  et  ritnali  nostra  consuetudine  summum  sacerdotium,  sacri  minislerii 
summa  nuncupatur.  Inde  fit  ut,  quaniam  sacramentum  Ordinis  verumque 
Christi  sacerdotium  a  ritu  anglicano  penitus  extrusum  est,  atque  ideo  in 
consecratione  episcopali  ejusdem  ritus  nullo  modo  sacerdotium  confertur, 
nullo  item  modo  episcopatus  vere  ac  jure  possit  conferri:  eoqne  id  magis 
quia  in  primis  episcopatus  munus  illud  scilicet  est,  ministros  ordinandi  in 
sanctam  eucharistiam  et  sacriflcium. 

Eeferring,  in  the  light  of  this  most  recent  pontifical  deliver- 
ance, to  the  "  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,"  published  by 
command  of  Pope  Pius  V.,  we  find  the  following  enumeration 
of  the  several  orders  of  the  Eoman  Church: 

Their  number,  according  to  the  uniform  and  universal  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  is  seven:  Porter,  Reader,  Exorcist,  Acolyte,  Sub-deacon, 
Deacon,  and  Priest.  ...  Of  these  some  are  greater,  which  are  also  called 
"  Holy,"  some  lesser,  which  are  called  "  Minor  Orders."  The  greater  or  Holy 


orders:  ROMAN  AND  ANGLICAN. 


163 


Orders  are  Sub-deaconship,  Deaconship,  and  Priesthood;  the  lesser  or  Minor 
Orders  are  Porter,  Reader,  Exorcist,  and  Acolyte.^ 

On  a  later  page  tlie  same  official  catechism  declares: 

The  tliird  and  highest  degree  of  all  Holy  Orders  is  the  Priesthood.  Per- 
sons raised  to  the  Priesthood  the  Holy  Fathers  distinguish  by  two  names: 
they  are  called  "  Presbyters,"  which  in  Greek  sii^nifles  elders,  and  which  was 
given  them,  not  only  to  express  the  matm-e  years  required  by  the  Priest- 
hood, but  still  more,  the  gravity  of  their  manners,  their  knowledge  and  pru- 
dence :  "  Venerable  old  age  is  not  that  of  long  time,  nor  counted  by  the  num- 
bers of  years;  but  the  understanding  of  a  man  is  grey  hairs  ":  they  are  also 
called  "Priests"  (Sacerdotes),  because  they  are  consecrated  to  God,  and  to 
them  it  belongs  to  administer  the  sacraments  and  to  handle  sacred  things.^ 

One  more  brief  quotation  from  the  Eoman  Catechism  will 
suffice  for  our  present  purpose: 

The  Order  of  Priesthood,  although  essentially  one,  has  different  degrees 
of  dignity  and  power.  The  first  is  confined  to  those  who  are  simply  called 
Priests,  and  wlio>e  functions  we  have  now  explained.  The  second  is  that 
of  Bifchops,  who  are  placed  over  their  respective  sees,  to  govern  not  only  the 
other  ministers  of  the  Church,  but  also  the  faithful.  .  .  .  But  Bishops 
are  also  called  "  Pontiffs,"  a  name  borrowed  from  the  ancient  Romans,  and 
used  to  designate  their  Chief-priests.  The  third  degree  is  that  of  Archbish- 
op. .  .  .  Patriarchs  hold  the  fourth  place,  and  are,  as  the  name  implies, 
the  first  and  supreme  Fathers  in  the  Episcopal  order.  Formerly,  besides  the 
Sovereign  Pontiff,  there  were  but  four  Patriarchs  in  the  Church.  .  .  .  The 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  although  last  in  the  order  of  time,  was  first  in 
rank.  .  .  .  Next  ...  is  that  of  Alexandria,  a  see  founded  by  the 
Evangelist  St.  Mark.  .  .  .  The  third  is  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch, 
founded  by  St.  Peter,  and  the  first  seat  of  the  Apostolic  See;  the  fourth  and 
last,  the  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem,  founded  by  St.  James,  the  brother  of  our 
Lord. 

Superior  to  all  these  is  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  whom  Cyril,  Archbishop  of 
Alexandria,  denominated  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  "the  Father  and  Pa- 
triarch of  the  whole  world."  ...  As  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  the 
true  and  legitimate  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  he,  therefore,  presides  over  the 
Universal  Church,  the  Father  and  Governor  of  all  the  faithful,  of  Bishops, 
also,  and  of  all  other  prelates,  be  their  station,  rank,  or  power  what  they 
may  .3 

The  essential  oneness  of  all  these  five  degrees  of  priesthood, 
from  the  jjresbyter  to  the  pope,  appears  from  the  standpoint  of 
the  Roman  Catechism  in  this,  that  all  of  them  stand  in  the  same 

iPage  216  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  translated  into  Eng- 
lish by  the  Rev.  J.  Donovan,  Professor  in  the  Royal  College,  Maynooth. 
New  York:  Catholic  Publication  Society. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  220.    3  Ibid.,  pp.  221 ,  222. 


164 


APPENDIX. 


relation  to  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  the  supreme  act  of  worship, 
aud  the  center  of  the  ceremonial  and  the  sacerdotal  power,  of 
the  Koman  Church.  The  language  of  the  Catechism  strictly 
and  literally  interpreted  would  mean  that  the  priest  differs  from 
the  bishop  only  as  the  bishop  differs  from  the  archbishop,  aud 
as  the  archbishop  differs  from  the  patriarch,  and  as  the  patri- 
arch differs  from  the  pojje.  The  common  priesthood  has  five 
degrees  of  dignity.  But  in  view  of  the  facts  ( 1 )  that  sacerdotal 
power  in  the  mass  is  chiefly  had  in  view  in  this  declaration,  (2) 
that  the  power  of  ordination  has  always  been  canonically  con- 
fined to  the  episcopate,  and  (3)  that  variant  opinions  of  many 
dogmatists  and  canonists  of  high  authority  have  been  tolerated 
on  this  point  of  the  difference  between  priests  and  bishops,  it 
would  perhaps  be  unwise  to  press  this  interpretation  to  its  final 
issue.  It  is  worth  while  to  notice,  however,  that  there  is  imbed- 
ded in  the  Roman  doctrine  the  primitive  tradition  of  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  episcopate  from  the  presbyterate,  and  that  the  high 
Anglican  doctrine  of  the  essential  and  inviolable  divine  distinc- 
tion between  episcopal  and  presbyterial  orders,  whereon  the  An- 
glicans build  their  Church  and  excommunicate  other  Protestants, 
finds  scant  support,  if  any,  in  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Some  of  the  principal  facts  in  connection  with  this  complex 
subject  are  the  following: 

1.  The  scholastics  seem  to  have  been  inclined  to  deny  that  the 
episcopate  is,  in  the  proper  sacramental  sense,  a  distinct  order 
from  the  priesthood  (presbyterate  or  sacerdotium).  Such  repre- 
sentative writers  of  matured  scholasticism  as  Thomas  Aquinas, 
Bonaventura,  and  Durandus  took  this  ground. 

2.  In  the  sub-scholastic  era,  though  unanimity  was  not  main- 
tained, the  scholastic  view,  in  the  sense  just  defined,  appears  very 
largely  to  have  colored  Roman  Catholic  phraseology  and  think- 
ing. In  proof  of  this,  reference  may  be  made  to  the  Tridentine 
documents.  In  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent  (to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Catechism)  we  find  that  the  second  chapter 
of  the  twenty-third  session  has  the  heading  De  se-ptem  ordinibus. 
It  is  indeed  denied  that  the  heading  belonged  to  the  original; 
nevertheless,  the  fact  of  its  being  inserted  and  continuously  tol- 
erated is  significant,  as  indicating  that  in  the  customary  way  of 
thinking  jnst  seven  orders  were  recognized,  the  seventh  of  course 


orders:  ROMAN  AND  ANGLICAN. 


165 


beiug  understood  to  be  the  priesthood.  Again,  in  the  second 
canon  of  this  same  session  we  read:  "If  anyone  saith  that,  be- 
sides the  priesthood,  there  are  not  in  the  Catholic  Church  otlier 
orders,  both  greater  and  minor,  by  which,  as  by  certain  steps, 
advance  is  made  into  the  priesthood:  let  him  be  anathema." 
The  natural  suggestion  of  this  language  is  that  the  priesthood 
is  the  final  stage  in  the  ascending  scale  of  orders.  The  cate- 
chism which  bears  the  name  of  Trent,  though  not  technically 
representative  of  the  council,  since  that  body  adjourned  before 
it  was  ready  for  approval,  is  fairly  presumed  to  reflect  the  think- 
ing prevalent  among  the  Tridentine  bishops.  As  has  been  shown, 
it  makes  the  priesthood  the  seventh  and  final  order,  the  superior 
dignity  which  is  affirmed  for  the  bishop  not  being  viewed  as  an 
attachment  of  a  distinct  order.  The  formal  approbation  given 
to  the  catechism  by  one  and  another  of  the  popes,  if  not  placing 
the  seal  of  infallibility  upon  all  its  details,  must  in  any  event 
be  regarded  as  securing  to  it  a  high  rank  as  a  Eoman  Catholic 
standard. 

3.  Bat  since  the  sixteenth  century  a  divided  verdict  has  been 
rendered  on  the  relation  of  the  episcopate  to  holy  orders,  and  a 
complete  view  of  the  subject  requires  notice  of  the  fact  that  the 
approved  Roman  Catholic  theory  makes  the  episcopate  an  essen- 
tial part  of  a  divinely  instituted  hierarchy,  and  does  not  allow 
that  the  particulars  in  which  it  differs  from  simple  priesthood 
are  matters  within  ecclesiastical  discretion. 

On  these  points  and  the  relation  of  bishops  to  holy  orders, 
Thomas  Aquinas  says: 

Episcopatus  ordo  esse  dici  potest,  non  quatenus  sacramentum  est  ad  eu- 
charistiam  ordinatum,  sed  tantum  ut  est  oflScium  quoddam  ad  sacras  et  hier- 
archicas  actiones. 

Ordo  potest  accipi  dupliciter.  Uno  mode  secundum  quod  est  sacramentum : 
et  sic,  ut  prius  dictum  est,  ordinatur  omnis  ordo  ad  eucharistije  sacramentum. 
Unde  cum  episcopus  non  habeat  potestatem  superiorem  sacerdote,  quantum 
a  1  hoc  episcopatus  non  eritordo.  Alio  modo  potest  considerari  ordo,  secun- 
dum quod  est  officium  quoddam  respectu  quarundam  actionum  sacrarum :  et 
sic  cum  episcopus  habeat  potestatem  in  actionibus  hierarchicis  respectu  cor- 
poris mystici  supra  sacerdotem,  episcopatus  erit  ordo.i 

This  seems  to  import  that  the  episcopate  is  not  an  order  be- 
yond the  priesthood,  or  presbyterate,  in  the  proper  sacramental 


1  Sum.  Theol.,  III.,  sup.  40.  5. 


166 


APPENDIX. 


sense,  but  only  in  a  qualified  sense,  or  in  virtue  of  superior  gov- 
erning authority  in  the  Church. 

Among  modern  authorities  Gury  seems  to  agree  with  Aquinas. 
He  says: 

Septem  numerantus ordine?, scilicet:  Presbyleratus, diaconatm,subdiaconalns, 
acolythatus,  exorcistatus,  lectoratus,  et  ostiaralm.  .  .  .  His  adde  episcopatum, 
et  primam  tonsuram  quorum  alter  est  ipsius  sacerdotii  complementum,  altera 
vero  ordo  non  est,  sed  dispositio  ad  ordines,  qua  quis  clericus  renuntiatur.i 

This  eminent  authority,  it  will  be  seen,  is  in  exact  agreement 
with  the  Tridentine  Catechism,  cited  above.    Liguori  says: 

Ordo  est  sacramentum,  qua  traditur  potestas  circa  eucharistiam  rite  admin- 
istrandam.  Ordines  universim  sunt  septem:  Ostiaratus,  lectoratus,  exorcis- 
tatus, acolythatus,  subdiaconatus,  diaconatus  et  sacerdotium.  Quod  rursus 
est  duplex,  minus  et  majus  sive  episcopatus.   Unde  quidam  octo  numcrant.''' 

Liguori  is  inclined  to  side  with  those  who  make  the  episcopate 
an  order  distinct  from  the  presbyterate  or  sacerdotium.  The 
high  valuation  given  to  the  authority  of  Aquinas  by  Leo  XIIL, 
as  well  as  the  tenor  of  his  decision  on  the  validity  of  Anglican 
orders,  is  presumptive  evidence  that  he  favors  the  position  of 
the  Angelical  Doctor.  The  phrase  which  Leo  cites  as  descriptive 
of  the  episcopate — proeexcellente  gradu  sacerdotium — is  rather  in 
line  than  otherwise  with  the  view  that  associates  the  episcopate 
with  the  priesthood  in  point  of  order.  Moreover,  the  command, 
Back  to  Saint  Thomas!  which  the  pope  has  sent  all  along  the 
line  of  his  forces,  makes  it  easy  to  think  that  he  leans  to  the 
view  of  the  Angelical  Doctor.  It  is  quite  probable,  too,  that  the 
pope  would  think  twice  about  the  significance  of  the  papal  ap- 
probation of  the  Tridentine  Catechism  before  venturing  fornaal- 
ly  to  pronounce  against  its  exposition  of  holy  orders  in  relation 
to  the  episcopate.  On  the  whole,  there  is  exceedingly  small  oc- 
casion to  look  for  a  papal  deliverance  of  that  kind. 

We  have  recently  received  from  the  Wesleyan  book-steward  at 
London  the  third  edition,  revised  and  enlarged,  of  Dr.  James  H. 
Eigg's  "  Comparative  View  of  Church  Organizations,  Primitive 
and  Protestant ":  London,  1897.  At  pages  74,  75  Dr.  Kigg  gives 
a  brief  and  very  satisfactory  account  of  the  modern  rise  of  the 
theory  of  episcopal  apostolic  succession  in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland.   The  learned  Wesleyan  divine  says: 


1  Theol.  Moral,  n.  1415, 1416.   ^Theol.  Moral.  Lib.  6,  Tract.  5,  cap.  2,  n.  734. 


OlfDERS:  I!0^rAX  axd  axglican. 


167 


The  necessity',  however,  for  formulating  this  theory  [of  "apostolico-epis- 
coiial  succession  "]  was  not  discovered  until  half  a  century  had  passed  since 
the  separation  from  Rome  of  the  Reformed  Church  of  England.  It  had  not 
been  maintained  or  defined  in  any  ecclesiastical  decree  or  corpus  theologicum 
of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  was,  as  formulated,  an  invention  of  the  Church 
of  England  to  meet  its  controversial  necessities  when  pressed  hard  by  the 
zealous  champions  of  the  Puritan  party.  These  insisted  on  the  divine  right 
of  their  Presbyterian  platform  as  opposed  to  prelatic  episcopacy.  By  a  nota- 
ble coincidence,  in  the  very  same  year,  the  year  of  the  Armada,  to  which  I 
have  already  referred  as  marking  the  date  when  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Eugland  became,  by  a  sudden  and  sweeping  change,  Anglo-Catholic,  Dr. 
Bancroft,  afterwards  archbishop,  preaching  at  Paul's  Cross,  suggested  rather 
than  asserted  the  divine  right  of  bishops  in  the  Church  of  England,  thus 
claiming  to  make  good  its  position  against  the  "  divine  right "  asserted  by 
Rome  on  the  one  hand  and  claimed  for  the  Puritan  "  discipline  "  on  the 
other.  This  was,  at  the  time,  an  entiiely  novel  suggestion,  and  involved  a 
desertion  of  the  ground  hitherto  held  by  Jewell,  Whitgift,  and  Hooker,  and, 
to  quote  Mr.  Child's  language,  "  appeared  to  have  been  enunciated  simply,  as 
one  may  say,  to  overtrump  "  the  great  Puritan  controversialist  "Cartwright's 
trick."  1  Shortly  afterwards,  this  view  was  elaborately  set  forth  and  main- 
tained by  Dr.  Bilson,  afterwards  bishop  of  Winchester.  It  was,  however,  a 
startling  and  very  notable  change  of  position  for  churchmen  to  take  up  in 
Elizabeth's  reign.  Indeed,  Bilson's  argument  was  not  only  opposed  to  the 
views  of  Whitgift  and  Hooker  before  him,  but  of  Andrewes  after  him,  of 
whose  character  and  authority  so  much  is  made  by  modern  churchmen.  A 
distinguished  high-church  ecclesiastical  scholar.  Dr.  N.  Pocock,  writing  in  the 
Guardian  in  1892  (November  23),  says  roundly  that  "the  belief  in  an  apos- 
tolical succession  in  the  episcopate  is  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  the  writings 
of  the  Elizabethan  bishops,"  and  that  "probably  not  a  single  bishop  was  to 
be  found  who  believed  in  his  own  divine  commission  [by  episcopal  descent 
from  the  apostles  in  an  unbroken  line  of  ordinations.!  or  in  the  efficacy  lex 
opere  operato]  of  the  sacraments." 

In  conclusion  we  desire  to  say  tliat,  not  only  in  view  of  Leo 
XIII.'s  summary  and  final  condemnation  of  the  validity  of  An- 
glican orders  and  of  the  general  current  of  the  doctrine  of  or- 
ders in  the  Church  of  Eome  itself,  but  also  in  view  of  the  com- 
plete disappearance  of  the  dogmatic  and  historical  foundations 
of  the  modern  Anglican  claims  upon  the  first  touch  of  unbiased 
but  thoroughgoing  historical  criticism,  according  to  universally 
received  canons  of  investigation,  there  is  as  little  likelihood  and 
would  be  as  little  propriety  in  the  reception  of  reordination  by 
Methodist  Episcopalians  at  the  hands  of  the  bishops  of  the 
younger  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  as  in  the  reception  of 


1  Church  and  State  under  the  Tudors,  by  Gilbert  W.  Child,  M.A.,  p.  238. 


168 


APPENDIX. 


Roman  reordinatiou  by  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England 
and  its  American  offshoot.  Our  surprise  at  the  position  of 
such  a  man  as  Dr.  Charles  W.  Shields,  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  on  this  question  of  the  acceptance  of  the  "historic 
episcopate"  scarcely  knows  bounds.  With  entire  respect  for 
our  Protestant  Episcopal  brethren  (and  we  trust  with  no  breach 
of  Christian  charity),  but  also  with  perfect  frankness,  we  adopt 
the  language  of  Dr.  Daniel  Curry,  in  the  Methodist  Review  (New 
York)  for  January,  1897:  "That  such  a  proposition  should  be 
made  by  courteous  Christian  people,  without  any  sense  of  inso- 
lence on  their  part,  shows  to  what  a  degree  excessive  self-appre- 
ciation may  blunt  the  soul's  best  sentiments.  .  .  .  The  Church 
of  Kome  offers  as  liberal  terms  to  all  men — heathens,  Jews,  and 
Protestants — as  the  would-be  American  Church  offers  to  their 
confessed  fellow-Christians."^ 

The  questions  here  tentatively  argued  have  from  a  very  early 
date  occupied  a  large  place  in  the  literature  of  Methodism.  They 
begin  with  John  Wesley's  statement  of  the  grounds  upon  which 
he  considered  himself  a  scriptural  bishop,  and  his  justification 
of  his  exercise  of  the  "  power  of  ordination."  Freeborn  Garrett- 
son  says  that  it  was  a  "  power  of  ordination  "  which  Wesley  sent 
to  America  by  Coke,  Whatcoat,  and  Vasey.  ("Experience  and 
Travels,"  Philadelphia:  1791;  pp.  161,  162,  and  197,  198.)  In 
1804,  Dr.  William  Phoebus  wrote  an  "Apology  for  the  Right  of 
Ordination,  in  the  Evangelical  Church  of  America,  called  Meth- 
odists," which  is  extensively  quoted  in  Myles's  "Chronological 
History"  (ed.  1813),  pp.  164,  165.  From  Myles  these  citations 
have  passed  into  the  pages  of  later  historians.  In  1817,  Phoe- 
bus also  published  "An  Essay  on  the  Doctrine  and  Order  of  the 
Evangelical  Church  of  America;  as  constituted  at  Baltimore  in 
1784,"  the  full  title  of  which  has  been  cited  in  the  list  of  the 
sources  of  the  Christmas  Conference.    From  p.  67  to  p.  109 

iTliis  Appendix  has  been  added  since  the  Preface  was  stereotyped.  Ac- 
cordingly I  can  only  here  make  proper  acknowledgment  of  my  obligations 
to  my  esteemed  friend,  Professor  Henry  C.  Sheldon,  the  eminent  Church 
historian,  of  Boston  University,  for  effective  assistance  in  the  collection  of 
materials.  My  copy  of  the  Latin  text  of  Leo's  decision  was  unfortunately 
lost  in  the  mails,  and  the  analysis  of  the  grounds  of  the  adverse  decision  was 
taken  from  the  original  and  furnished  me  by  Dr.  Sheldon.  He  has  also  veri- 
fied the  references  to  Aquinas,  Gury,  and  Liguori,  contained  in  books  at 
present  inaccessible  to  me. 


orders:  ROMAN  AND  ANGLICAN. 


169 


Phoebus  treats  at  large  of  Methodist  orders  and  the  doctrine  of 
orders  in  the  Anglican  Church.  In  this  connection,  it  is  well 
also  to  consult  the  "  Memoirs  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  From  its  Organiza- 
tion up  to  the  Present  Day:  Containing  I.  A  Narrative  of  the 
Organization  and  of  the  Early  Measures  of  the  Church ;  II.  Ad- 
ditional Statements  and  Kemarks;  III.  An  Appendix  of  Orig- 
inal Papers.  By  William  White,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania. 
Second  edition.  New  York:  1836."  In  addition  to  his  well- 
known  work,  "Defense  of  our  Fathers,"  Bishop  Emory  wrote 
another,  entitled  the  "  Episcopal  Controversy  Reviewed,"  edited 
and  published  after  his  death  by  his  son  Eobert.  The  latest 
Methodist  work  on  the  subject  is  "The  Historic  Episcopate:  A 
Study  of  Anglican  Claims  and  Methodist  Orders,"  by  Dr.  R.  J. 
Cooke,  who  has  a  paper  entitled  "The  Ancient  British  and 
Ephesian  Succession  Theories,"  in  the  Mef/iodist  Recieiv  (New 
York)  for  March,  1898.  Estcourt  on  "Anglican  Succession" 
(London:  1873)  is  also  referred  to  as  a  work  of  value.  We  have 
examined  it,  but  have  not  read  it.  But  this  is  perhaps  a  suffi- 
cient summary  of  the  literature  for  those  who  wish  to  pursue 
the  subject  further. 


INDEX. 


Admission  into  full  connection,  in 
England,  52. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  quoted,  165. 

Arminian  Magazine,  Philadelphia, 
1789,  quoted,  109;  for  1790,  quoted, 
110;  full  title  of,  110,  111;  contents 
of  1789  noted,  113,  114;  quoted,  116. 

Asbury,  Francis,  his  history  as  gen- 
eral assistant,  4;  ordained  deacon, 
elder,  and  superintendent,  5 ;  elect- 
ed by  Christmas  Conference,  5; 
relations  with  Coke,  9;  nominates 
assistant  bishops,  10;  relations  with 
Whatcoat,  10;  relations  with  Mc- 
Kendree,  11;  "mute  and  modest," 
33,  135;  methodizes  Discipline  in 
1787,  36;  quoted,  40, 41, 58,  61,  70,  79, 
84,  85,  87,  92,  102,  110,  111,  112,  131, 
135 ;  comes  to  America,  47,  57 ;  con- 
victions on  itinerancy,  57,  58;  Val- 
edictory Address  quoted,  58;  suc- 
ceeds Boardman,  58 ;  powers  in  1779, 
61,  63;  commission  to  Manakin- 
town,  62;  tenure  and  authority  in 
1782,  63;  meets  Coke,  76;  use  of  the 
term  "general  conference,^'  84,  85; 
presidency  in  Christmas  Confer- 
ence, 89 ;  full  title-page  and  descrip- 
tion of  Journal,  109-112;  interposes 
Conference  as  a  ban-ier,  134 ff;  death 
of,  112. 

Atkinson,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  89. 
Baltimore  Conference  System,  147  ff. 


Bancroft,  George,  History  U.  S.  quoted, 
28,  29. 

Bangs,  Nathan,  quoted,  39,  01. 

Benson,  Joseph,  Asbury's  letter  to, 
quoted,  135. 

Bishops,  contemporary,  8;  conform 
administration  to  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion, 17 ;  table  of  contemporary,  17, 
18;  table  of  proportion  to  ministry 
and  membership,  18. 

Bishops'  meeting,  recommended  by 
General  Conference  of  1824, 14;  first 
held  in  1826, 15. 

Boardman,  Richard,  comes  to  Amer- 
ica, 47 ;  his  laxity,  57. 

Bunting,  Jabez,  influence  in  1836,  53. 

Cabinet,  the,  McKendree  author  of, 
11,  43. 

Catliolicity  of  Methodism,  48. 

Christmas  Conference,  the,  its  call,  5, 
60,  75  ff,  130  ff ;  elects  Coke  and  As- 
bury joint  superintendents,  5;  sum- 
mary of  action  and  nature  of,  32,  33, 
60,  67,  82,  86 ;  in  what  sense  a  con- 
vention, 81,  130  ff,  140  ff;  meets,  88; 
membership  of,  88,  89 ;  two  printed 
records  of,  94  ff;  sources  for  the  his- 
tory of,  98  ff;  its  work,  120  ff;  self- 
created  and  self-sufficient,  136, 137 ; 
created  the  M.  E.  Church,  137,  138. 

Circular  letter,  Mr.  Wesley's,  83,  84. 

Coke,  Thomas,  his  episcopal  ordina- 
tion and  the  grounds  thereof,  4, 
(171) 


172 


INDEX. 


27;  elected  joint  superintendent  by 
Christmas  Conference,  5 ;  his  super- 
intendency,  8,  9;  relations  with  As- 
bury,  9 ;  presidency  in  General  Con- 
ference, 9;  correspondence  with 
O'Kelly,  39;  quoted,  39,  57,  75, 
76,  122,  131;  arrives  in  America, 
75;  meets  Asbury,  76;  presidency 
in  Christmas  Conference,  89,  90; 
preaching,  96;  Journal,  title-page 
and  description  of,  113-115;  other 
works,  116. 

Coke  and  Asbury,  Notes  to  the  Disci- 
pline quoted,  36. 

Conference  first  in  America,  59;  pow- 
ers in  1782,  64,  65;  General  and  An- 
nual complementary,  123. 

Constitution  of  1808, 11. 

Cooper,  Ezekiel,  quoted,  80  (foot- 
note); his  Funeral  Discourse  on 
Asbury,  99,  119. 

Council,  the,  35,  38,  39,  110. 

Creighton,  Rev.  James,  assisted  in 
original  Methodist  ordinations  at 
Bristol,  31. 

Curry,  Dr.  Daniel,  quoted,  168. 

Deed  op  Declaration,  52,  54. 

Dickins,  John,  89, 102. 

Dickinson,  Rev.  Peard,  his  participa- 
tion in  Methodist  ordinations  dis- 
cussed, 31 ;  further  history  of,  32. 

Discipline  of  1785,  quoted,  120,  121, 
138;  title-page  quoted,  98;  full  title- 
page  and  description,  100,  101; 
of  1786,  full  title-page  and  de- 
scription, 105,  106;  title  cited,  141; 
of  1787,  full  title-page,  106;  title- 
page,  quoted,  89,  102;  of  1788,  full 
title-page  and  description,  106;  of 


1789,  full  title-page  and  description, 
106, 107;  of  1790,  full  title-page  and 
description,  107;  of  1791,  full  title- 
page  and  description,  107,  108;  of 
1792,  full  title-page  and  description, 
108,  109;  title-page  quoted,  92;  en- 
actment of,  145, 146. 
District  Conferences,  possibilities  of, 
23. 

District,  earliest  use  of  term,  34. 

Districts,  episcopal,  principles  of  fixed 
in  1816,  12;  suggestions  in  1824  by 
General  Conference,  15;  action  in 
1832, 16, 17. 

Ecclesiastical  Principles  and  Polity 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  quoted, 
50,  51 ;  described,  51  (footnote). 

Elders,  Whatcoat's  parchment,  30; 
elected  and  ordained  at  Christmas 
Conference,  33;  duties  assigned  in 
first  Discipline,  33 ;  duties  added  in 
1786,  34 ;  in  1787,  35. 

Electors,  episcopal,  proposed,  10, 11. 

Embury,  Philip,  47. 

Entwisle,  Joseph,  49. 

Episcopacy,  account  of  origin  of  in 
Discipline  of  1789,  5. 

Episcopal  Church,  organized  in  1784, 
67,  68. 

Episcopal  districts,  principles  of  fixed 
in  1816,  12 ;  suggestions  in  1824  by 
General  Conference,  15;  action  in 
1832, 16, 17. 

Examination,  English,  for  admission 
to  Conference,  50. 

Expulsions,  from  ministry,  in  Eng- 
lish Metliodism,  54. 

Fedkkation,  23. 


INDEX. 


173 


Fluvanna,  Conference  at,  61;  ordina- 
tions, 28,  29,  61,  62;  suppression  of 
ordinations  and  sacraments,  62,  67, 
68,  79,  139. 

Frj-,  Benj.  St.  James,  Life  of  What- 
coat,  118, 119. 

Full  connection,  admission  into  in 
England,  52. 

Galloway,  Bishop  C.  B.,  assists  in 
ordinations  at  British  (Conference, 
53. 

Garrettpon,  Freeborn,  enters  itineran- 
cy, 60 ;  messenger  to  call  Christmas 
Conference,  76,  88;  works  of,  116, 
119;  quoted,  168. 

Gatch,  Philip,  61,  93. 

General  Conference,  Asbury's  use  of 
the  term,  84,  85;  use  in  England, 
85  (footnote) ;  secretary  of,  91 ;  Lee's 
notation  of,  142;  use  of  in  caption 
of  Minutes,  150  ff,  155. 

George,  Enoch,  elected  bishop,  11; 
relations  with  colleagues,  12,  15,  16. 

Gury,  quoted,  166. 

Heddisg,  Elijah,  elected  bishop,  14 ; 

relations  with  colleagues,  15,  16; 

visits  Southern   Conferences  but 

once  in  twenty  years,  19. 
Hollingsworth,  Francis,  quoted,  111 ; 

referred  to,  112. 

IxiNEEAXCV,  compact  of,  69;  advan- 
tages of,  19,  70;  concluding  history 
of,  70,  71. 

Journal  of  Asbury,  full  title-page  and 

description  of,  109-112. 
Journal  of  Coke,  full  title-page  and 

description  of,  113-115. 


Lauge  Minttes,  basis  of  first  Disci- 
pline, 95;  Robert  Emory  corrected, 
138  (footnote). 

Lednum,  Rev.  John,  quoted,  60,  89. 

Lee,  Dr.  L.  M.,  quoted,  94, 148. 

Lee,  Jesse,  opposes  the  Council,  39; 
quoted,  35,  40,  41,  62,  64,  65,  88,  92, 
93,  103,  122,  123,  142  ff,  147,  148,  149, 
150,  154;  his  History  estimated,  99, 
100;  title-page  of,  119. 

Leo  XIII.,  quoted,  162. 

Letter,  Circular,  Mr.  "Wesley's,  83; 
analyzed,  132,  133;  original  copy 
of,  134  (footnote);  incorrect  punc- 
tuation of,  134  (footnote);  two 
earliest  copies  compared,  155  (foot- 
note). 

Liguori,  quoted,  166. 

Location,  right  of,  69. 

Mather,  Alexander,  ordained  super- 
intendent by  Mr.  Wesley,  5,  31. 

McClintock,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  92. 

McKendree,  "William,  elected  bishop, 
11 ;  relations  with  Asbury,  11 ;  orig- 
inator of  the  Cabinet,  11,  43;  hesi- 
tates about  episcopal  districts,  12, 
13;  relations  with  colleagues,  15, 16; 
in  O'Kelly's  district,  38. 

Memoirs  of  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  by  Bishop  "W" hite,  169. 

Memoirs  of  "V\'hatcoat,  by  Phoebus, 
117. 

Methodism,  American,  organized  as 
an  Episcopal  Church,  67. 

Methodist  Protestant  Church,  Con- 
stitution and  Discipline  cited,  141 
(footnote). 

Ministerial  character,  how  conferred, 
48,  49. 


174 


INDEX. 


Minutes,  American,  quoted,  GO,  61,  62, 
G3,  65,  122,  139,  148,  151;  in  ques- 
tion aud  answer  form,  93. 

Minutes,  English,  quoted,  48,  49,  52, 
53,  54,  55,  5(5;  in  question  and 
answer  form,  90. 

Minutes,  Large,  basis  of  first  Disci- 
pline, 95 ;  Robert  Emory  corrected, 
138  (footnote). 

Minutes  of  1795,  title-page,  description 
and  discussion  of,  101-105,  149-156; 
for  quotations  from,  see  Minutes, 
American. 

O'Kelly,  James,  ordained  elder,  33, 
40;  opposition  to  the  Council,  38, 
39;  correspondence  with  Wesley 
and  Coke,  39;  continuously  presid- 
ing elder,  39,  40;  withdraws,  40; 
works  of,  117. 

Orders,  origin  of,  in  Methodism,  28, 
29,  66,  140;  Eoman  and  Anglican, 
161  fiF. 

Ordination,  by  imposition  of  hands, 
when  and  how  begun  in  British 
Conference,  53,  61, 139. 

Pastoral  term,  in  England,  54,  55;  in 

America,  GO,  70. 
Pearson,  Dr.  John,  quoted,  89. 
Phoebus,  William,  works  of,  117, 119, 

168. 

Pierce,  William,  quoted,  50,  51. 
Pilmoor,  Joseph,  comes  to  America, 
47. 

Plan  of  Pacification,  English,  54. 
Plan  of  Separation,  American,  17. 
Presiding  eldership,  coeval  with  the 

Church,  34;  duties  of,  34,  35,  36; 

earliest  occurrence  of  the  title,  35 ; 

chronology  of  the  title,  37 ;  appoint- 


ment and  term  in  the  office,  40,  41 ; 
action  in  1792,  42;  action  of  1840, 
42. 

Private  Sources  for  history  of  Christ- 
mas Conference,  discriminated  aud 
enumerated,  99, 109  ff. 
Probationary  term,  62,  63. 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  White's 

Memoirs  of,  169. 
Public  Sources  for  history  of  Christ- 
mas Conference,  discriminated  and 
enumerated,  98, 100  fi". 

Quarterly  Conferences,  primitive 
jurisdiction  in  America,  58;  first 
held  in  America,  59. 

Rankin,  Thomas,  first  general  assist- 
ant in  America,  8;  ordained  by 
Wesley,  31;  comes  to  America,  47; 
succeeds  Asbury,  58;  exercises  ap- 
pointing power,  59 ;  closes  his  Amer- 
ican work,  60;  testimony  of  Asbury 
and  Bangs,  61. 
Resolution  of  submission,  adopted 
by  Christmas  Conference,  8,  33; 
repealed,  8,  33. 
Rigg,  Dr.  James  H.,  quoted,  166,  167. 
Roberts,  R.  R.,  elected  bishop,  11; 
relations  with  colleagues,  12, 15. 

Seabury,  Samuel,  ordination  of,  29. 
Secretaries,  of  British  Conference,  90 ; 
of  General  Conference,  90;  of  An- 
nual Conferences,  93. 
Shadford,  George,  comes  to  America, 
47. 

Sheldon,  Dr.  H.  C,  obligations  to,  168 

(footnote). 
Soule,  Joshua,  doubts  constitution- 
ality of  episcopal  districts,  13 ;  scru- 


INDEX. 


175 


pies  removed,  14;  elected  bishop, 
14;  relations  with  colleagues,  15, 16; 
quoted,  34,  128;  assists  in  English 
ordinations,  53. 

Sources,  Public  and  Private,  for  history 
of  Christmas  Conference,  98,  99  ff. 

South  Carolina  Conference,  Minutes 
of  cited,  93  (footnote). 

Stevens,  Abel,  quoted,  31,  58,  81,  82. 

Strawbridge,  Robert,  47;  pleads  for 
the  sacraments,  59;  first  to  admin- 
ister, 61. 

Sunday  Service,  of  1784,  title-page 

and  contents,  101. 
Superannuated  preachers,  provision 

for  in  England,  55. 
Superintendency,  General,  advantages 

and  dangers  of,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23. 
Superintendents,  joint,  powers  and 

responsibility  of,  6,  7;  proposed 

modifications,  in  1800,  10;  five  in 

1824,  14. 

Supernumerary  preachers,  provision 
for  in  England,  55. 

Term,  Pastoral,  in  England,  54,  55; 

in  America,  00,  70. 
Term,  Probationary,  02,  63. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  quoted,  165. 
Trent,  Catechism  of,  quoted,  162, 163 ; 

Decrees  of,  164, 165. 

Vasey,  Thomas,  ordained  presbyter, 
5,  27. 


Ware,  Tjiomas,  quoted,  34,  64;  Life 
and  Travels  of,  118;  article  and  let- 
ter by,  118. 

Warren,  Dr.W.F.,  Constitutional  Law 
Questions  cited,  18, 19,  20,  21,  22. 

Watters,  William,  presides  in  Confer- 
ence, 61 ;  autobiography,  118. 

Webb,  Thomas,  47, 

Wesley,  Charles,  his  protest  against 
his  brother's  ordaining,  5;  objec- 
tions to  Coke's  ordination  sermon, 
116. 

Wesley,  John,  exercised  episcopal 
office  in  England,  3;  grounds  of  his 
ordination  of  Coke,  4,  27;  ordains 
Mather  superintendent,  5;  powers 
claimed  under  resolution  of  sub- 
mission, 8;  design  in  1784,  27; 
quoted,  116,  131;  approved  the 
Christmas  Conference,  132. 

Whatcoat,  Richard,  ordained  presby- 
ter, 5,  27;  elected  bishop,  10;  rela- 
tions to  Asbury,  10;  ordination 
parchment  as  elder,  30 ;  reasons  for 
inserting,  31;  Memoirs,  117;  Fry's 
Life  of,  117, 118. 

White,  Bishop  William,  Memoirs  of, 
169. 

Wightman,  Bishop,  quoted,  31. 
Winans,  Dr.  William,  speech  in  1824, 
14. 

Wright,  Richard,  comes  to  America, 
47. 


THE 


END. 


DATE  DUE 


